Weedon Bec Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan Regulation 14 Consultation
Part I
Consultation Response Table 1
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 1 Marine All Comment Thank you for inviting the Marine Management Noted. No change. Manage organisation (MMO) to comment on the above ment Org consultation. I can confirm that the MMO has no comments to submit in relation to this consultation as Weedon is not within our remit. 2 Nina All Support and I have studied the draft plan both on-line and at the Noted. No change. Kaskiewi comment chapel rooms. Firstly thank you to all those involved in cz arriving at the plan. This is what democracy is about - village people having a constructive say in how the village develops. The development sites identified mean that the current difficult traffic issues within the village won't be added to, or at least only marginally. I can only hope that this plan is adopted rather than the horrible Gladman proposal. 3 Eileen All Support and After many cups of coffee, I managed to read the Plan. Noted. No change. Perry Comment I found it very interesting and was pleased to see the outcome of the drain survey. As I expected not good and hope this will be used in the Gladman Appeal and any others that might follow. Ponds are not for sewage!!!! Where is it going? West St and Church Street. As this appears at the end of the plan will it be read, or will most have given up after page 100? I thank all those concerned in drawing up the plan for all their hard work. No further comments 1
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 4 Judith 82 All Object I am writing to lodge my objection to Draft The proposed sites at Consider SEA findings Allnatt o Neighbourhood Development Plan (DNP) proposals for WB9/2 and WB9/3 were n- development sites at WB9/2 and WB9/3, or indeed put forward following Amend WB9/2 and delete WB9/3. w any proposal for large scale development at Weedon. consideration of the call ar The DNP itself states that 81% of recent questionnaire for sites and site d respondents favoured only ‘small scale developments, assessment report, and in keeping with the village’s rural character, of 10 or taking into consideration fewer properties’, so there is no democratic mandate the results of various for the DNP to offer sites such as those above for stages of community future development. engagement and consultation. Having looked at the Daventry District Local Plan and the Joint Core Strategy, I can see that Weedon is not obliged to offer up sites for such large scale The Local Plan is currently development. The Daventry District Local Plan 1997 being reviewed by (quoted in the DNP) identifies Weedon Bec as a Daventry District Council, Restricted Infill Village in Policy HS22 and states that and informal discussions only permission for small scale residential with planning policy development, within the existing confines of a village officers have supported and not affecting open land which is of particular the view that Weedon Bec significance to the form and character of the village, is likely to move up the will normally be granted. The proposed sites at WB settlement hierarchy due 9/2&3 are neither small scale nor within the existing its range of shops, confines of the village and do affect open land. One is community facilities, on the edge of an industrial estate and the other in school and employment the middle of open countryside. areas. This would mean in turn that Weedon will be Further, the Joint Core Strategy, does not stipulate required to accommodate numbers of houses to be accommodated by each a higher proportion of village, in fact it states in section 9.2, that “The form housing, than, say smaller and scale of development (in rural areas) should be villages with fewer clearly justified by evidence of need through a local services. housing needs survey.” The DNP doesn’t mention such a survey; in fact its questionnaire results showed that 2
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N a majority of respondents don’t think we have a The JCS sets out an overall shortage of housing: 64% considered availability (of housing figure for the housing) good or fair. Daventry Rural Area of 2360 houses up to 2026 In addition, Daventry District Council’s guidance makes and Weedon Bec will be it clear that there is no obligation for Neighbourhood required to make a Plans to offer up specific sites, saying: “Please be contribution towards this aware that you do not have to allocate sites for figure, appropriate to the development” (Neighbourhood Development Plan Site village’s position in the Assessment Form Guidance Notes November 2014). proposed settlement hierarchy. People in Weedon generally don’t want large-scale development. We have fought it (and won) in the past Neighbourhood Plans do (Keep Weedon a Restricted Infill Village campaign not have to allocate sites. 1996). As you know, we are currently fighting this However, by doing so, the battle with Gladmans over the proposed New St Plan sets out a clear, development. In fact, if Weedon itself were to put positive strategy for the forward suggested sites of a similar size to the New future development of the Street development, Gladmans could say that our area, and allows local wholly valid arguments regarding overstretched people to have a greater infrastructure are no longer justified. say in where development should take place (rather than relying, for instance on just responding to planning applications). The proposed sites in the Draft Plan set out a reasonable alternative approach to the proposed New Street site and this alternative approach is welcomed by many residents – see comments below.
3
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N The Parish Council notes the consultee’s concerns and also the representations submitted by Daventry District Council and Historic England.
The proposed sites have been reviewed as part of the Strategic Environmental assessment.
Many of the arguments that have been made against In terms of traffic the New St development apply equally to WB 9/2 & 3. problems, the proposals It would be a dismal irony if Weedon put forward in its suggest that access will be own Neighbourhood Plan, developments of a similar required west of the pinch size and impact to those we have been battling to point, allowing residents stop! to leave the village on the Everdon Road to the A45 Arguments against the suggestion of these sites are: & DDL. The village centre Weedon is a large village already struggling to equate is walkable from the sites. amenities to its population size. Residents express concern that infrastructure is already overstretched (e.g. school places, GP appointments).
Traffic problems. The proposed egress from WB 9/3 is a new link road on to Queen Street, even though the DNP itself identifies part of Queen St as a ‘pinch point’. Large vehicles such as buses have difficulty getting through, often a whole row of vehicles or even buses or bin lorries have to back up causing inconvenience to drivers and danger to pedestrians. Parked vehicles 4
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N elsewhere in Queen St have already suffered serious damage due to drivers not allowing for the narrowness of the road. This would be the motor route to the village for up to 50 new families from WB 9/3, exacerbating these problems. Both developments would have a significant effect on the shortage of village centre parking.
Weedon is already one of the larger villages in the area and has assimilated a great deal of development in the past. Expanding its size by around a sixth is a very significant increase that would be likely to impact on social cohesion and the sense of community in the village. Sites WB9 /2 and WB 9/3 are also both isolated from this community.
Section 4 of the DNP has environmental objectives to: “prioritise the reuse of brownfield land, designate and manage local green space encouraging community participation, identify and enhance areas of wildlife interest and to define and maintain important views across the village and wider countryside”. None of these objectives would be served by building on prime agricultural land. The WB 9/3 site is in the middle of fields through which people regularly enjoy walking a route that links Lovers Lane and Tithe Lane. Both WB9/2 and Wb9/3 would ruin views across open countryside and the context in which the historic Depot buildings sit.
For all of the reasons above, I believe that the plan should be amended to remove sites WB 9/2 and WB 9/3 and revised to show only small scale developments, in keeping with the village’s rural 5
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N character, of 10 or fewer properties, in line with both restricted infill guidelines and the expressed preferences of residents.
Thank you for taking my objections and comments into consideration when making amendments to the Draft Neighbourhood Plan.
5 Spencer 82 WB9/2 Object I am writing to lodge my objection to Draft Noted as above – see Ref Consider SEA findings Allnatt o WB9/3 Neighbourhood Development Plan (DNP) proposals for 4. n- development sites at WB9/2 and WB9/3, or indeed Amend WB9/2 and delete WB9/3. w any proposal for large scale development at Weedon. ar The DNP itself states that 81% of recent questionnaire d respondents favoured only ‘small scale developments, in keeping with the village’s rural character, of 10 or fewer properties’, so there is no democratic mandate for the DNP to offer sites such as those above for future development. Having looked at the Daventry District Local Plan and the Joint Core Strategy, I can see that Weedon is not obliged to offer up sites for such large scale development. The Daventry District Local Plan 1997 (quoted in the DNP) identifies Weedon Bec as a Restricted Infill Village in Policy HS22 and states that only permission for small scale residential development, within the existing confines of a village and not affecting open land which is of particular significance to the form and character of the village, will normally be granted. The proposed sites at WB 9/2&3 are neither small scale nor within the existing confines of the village and do affect open land. One is on the edge of an industrial estate and the other in the middle of open countryside. 6
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Further, the Joint Core Strategy, does not stipulate numbers of houses to be accommodated by each village, in fact it states in section 9.2, that “The form and scale of development (in rural areas) should be clearly justified by evidence of need through a local housing needs survey.” The DNP doesn’t mention such a survey; in fact its questionnaire results showed that a majority of respondents don’t think we have a shortage of housing: 64% considered availability (of housing) good or fair. In addition, Daventry District Council’s guidance makes it clear that there is no obligation for Neighbourhood Plans to offer up specific sites, saying: “Please be aware that you do not have to allocate sites for development” (Neighbourhood Development Plan Site Assessment Form Guidance Notes November 2014). People in Weedon generally don’t want large-scale development. We have fought it (and won) in the past (Keep Weedon a Restricted Infill Village campaign 1996). As you know, we are currently fighting this battle with Gladmans over the proposed New St development. In fact, if Weedon itself were to put forward suggested sites of a similar size to the New Street development, Gladmans could say that our wholly valid arguments regarding overstretched infrastructure are no longer justified. Many of the arguments that have been made against the New St development apply equally to WB 9/2 & 3. It would be a dismal irony if Weedon put forward in its own Neighbourhood Plan, developments of a similar size and impact to those we have been battling to stop! Arguments against the suggestion of these sites are: 7
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Weedon is a large village already struggling to equate amenities to its population size. Residents express concern that infrastructure is already overstretched (e.g. school places, GP appointments). Traffic problems. The proposed egress from WB 9/3 is a new link road on to Queen Street, even though the DNP itself identifies part of Queen St as a ‘pinch point’. Large vehicles such as buses have difficulty getting through, often a whole row of vehicles or even buses or bin lorries have to back up causing inconvenience to drivers and danger to pedestrians. Parked vehicles elsewhere in Queen St have already suffered serious damage due to drivers not allowing for the narrowness of the road. This would be the motor route to the village for up to 50 new families from WB 9/3, exacerbating these problems. Both developments would have a significant effect on the shortage of village centre parking. Weedon is already one of the larger villages in the area and has assimilated a great deal of development in the past. Expanding its size by around a sixth is a very significant increase that would be likely to impact on social cohesion and the sense of community in the village. Sites WB9 /2 and WB 9/3 are also both isolated from this community. Section 4 of the DNP has environmental objectives to: “prioritise the reuse of brownfield land, designate and manage local green space encouraging community participation, identify and enhance areas of wildlife interest and to define and maintain important views across the village and wider countryside”. None of these objectives would be served by building on prime agricultural land. The WB 9/3 site is in the middle of fields through which people regularly enjoy walking a 8
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N route that links Lovers Lane and Tithe Lane. Both WB9/2 and Wb9/3 would ruin views across open countryside and the context in which the historic Depot buildings sit. For all of the reasons above, I believe that the plan should be amended to remove sites WB 9/2 and WB 9/3 and revised to show only small scale developments, in keeping with the village’s rural character, of 10 or fewer properties, in line with both restricted infill guidelines and the expressed preferences of residents. Thank you for taking my objections and comments into consideration when making amendments to the Draft Neighbourhood Plan. 6 Jennifer All Support Noted. No change. Webb
7 Mrs All Support Noted. No change. Maureen Franks
8 Mr Brian All All Support A good plan overall Noted. No change. Taylor
9 Mr John 88 WB9/2 Support/ Area WB9/2. I think more could be made of this area. Partially accepted. Amend Plan. Wilshire Comment Weedon It is the most desirable of those proposed in that it As the proposed Amend Policy: Sports slopes and is south facing. From early designs of the roundabout on the link Associati bypass, it appeared that the roundabout connecting road has now been moved Insert into second paragraph: on onto the A45 would be to the north of WB9/2. Further east from WB9/2 a “This could include, for instance, a road direct link in addition to linking the site to the west end of Fusilier If a spur road was connected off the roundabout, it the A45 would not be Way. This would give an access/exit to the would be possible to construct a feeder road through practical. However a link A45 from Cavalry Fields without going WB9/2 to connect to the west end of Fusilier Way. from that site to the end 9
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N This would give an access/egress to the A45 from of Fusilier Way may be through the industrial estate or Ordnance Cavalry Fields without going through the industrial possible. Road.” estate or touching Ordnance Road. A feeder road through WB9/2 would enlarge the potential of WB9/2 by extending south to the Depot boundary.
10 Alison All Support An excellent document – a lot of hard work involved. Noted. No change. Taylor
11 Mr All Support Excellent! Noted. No change. Graham Russell
12 Mr Brian 56 Map 7 Comment I believe that the pinch point should include the Noted and partially No change. Taylor Pinch section of West Street from the crossroads to the accepted. points junction with Manor Road However this proposal would extend the “pinch point” to include a large section of West Street.
No change required. 13 Mr Dale All Support Particularly supportive of efforts to open up Noted. No change. Langley underused green space between north and south of the village. It is a prime location for leisure and wildlife activity + would make a positive contribution to enhancing village life 14 Dorothy WB 10 Support Given the ageing population in the village increasing Noted. No change. Nicholso the facility of retirement houses etc is to be n encouraged. 10
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N
15 Dorothy WB 14 Support As my house is in the flood area potentially any Noted. No change. Nicholso improvement would be excellent n
16 Mr M All Support / Excellent plan for the village & residents Noted. No change. Fuller Comment
17 Sally All Support Support the development Plan. No large building sites Noted. No change. Jameson wanted
18 Andrew All All Support Noted. No change. Medcraft
19 Joe All Support I have studied the proposed plan both online and at Noted. No change. Freeston the chapel room. Obviously a great deal of local e consultation has taken place to arrive at a plan which both achieves the required number of homes and does not add to the already difficult and dangerous traffic issues in the village – WELL DONE. At last it seems that local people have been given an opportunity to influence the local issues which affect our lives so profoundly. 20 Val WB/9 Support Noted. No change. Young
21 Mrs All Support Noted. No change. Freda English
22 Mrs A E All Support Noted. No change. Wilshire
11
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 23 Caroline All Support I wholly support the plans for future development Noted. No change. Vass
24 June All Support Great Plans Noted. No change. Wood
25 Jen All Support I agree with the proposed plans Noted. No change. Pollingto n
26 Mrs K 91 4. WB10 Support Riverside Court does not have a ‘Warden on site’ on a Accepted. Amend Plan. Charlett 5. Comment permanent basis. ‘Warden on site’ gives the 15 impression that the Warden is there 24/7 which is not Correct change to ‘there is Amend 4.5.15 to “there is a visiting warden”. the case. a visiting warden An excellent job and agree with the conclusion!! 27 James All Support I consider this to be a first class plan, it is a result of a Noted. No change. Mantz considerable amount of time and hard work from the group. They are to be commended. I whole heartedly agree with all aspects of it. 28 Ken WB9/2 Object I wish to object in the strongest terms regarding the Noted - as Reference 4 As above – no further change. Snowdin WB9/3 housing proposed in the draft, ie WB9/2 & WB9/3. above. I am not a nimby. Just 100 yards to our right we have recently had Starmers Row built with 11 excellent "starter homes" and we are going to have the Leatherland builders yard developed with houses actually backing on to our back garden. I have no problem with either of these. There is no need or wish for such large developments as WB9/2 & WB9/3 which are exactly what we have fought Gladman over with their New St development. This does not accord with; the objective to prioritise the use of brown field land; the highlighted traffic problems; overstretched infrastructure in in terms of school places, GP appointments sewage etc. 12
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Weedon has had a great deal of housing development over recent years and this level of additional development would be unacceptable for all the reasons put forward against the Gladman development.
Where is the proportionate development in the surrounding villages seemingly preserved in aspic like Everdon, Badby, Newnham, Farthingstone etc. Other small villages like Litchborough and Morton Pinkney have had some smaller "starter homes". We are a Restricted infill village which should mean that any development to be confined to within the existing confines of the village.
The vast majority of the village have strongly favoured only small developments of fewer than 10 properties, in keeping with the character of the village. We DO NOT want either of the above large developments 29 George 45 4. Support / Could 4.2.27 be updated to include: Funding will be Noted and partially Amend plan. Bushell 2. Comment required for a replacement building within the next accepted. Weedon 27 few years, as it is a prefab asbestos clad building Add additional sentence to 4.2.27: Scout erected in the early 1960s and is part its use by date. The Parish Council “The Parish Council would support initiatives Group Also disabled access and facilities urgently need considers this is a including raising funding for a new building updating. reasonable request but and / or improved access”. understand the land covenanted for Scouts/Guides. The Parish Council would support proposals but would not be a position to fund a new building.
13
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Add sentence to this effect. 30 George 4. Support / I have just read 80% of the plan and must say I support Accepted. Amend Plan. Newbroo 1. Comment it except for, in my opinion, 4.1.10. May I suggest we Insert into 4.1.10. “There is also plenty of k 10 add the PP to the list to show appreciation to all those Include reference to evidence of wildlife in the Pocket Park, which who have given so much of their free time to create Pocket Park in 4.1.10. has been created and is managed by a team this park for the village. There is plenty of evidence of of local volunteers.” wildlife in the PP. 31 Helen 4.4 Support / I am in favour of increased and improved outdoor Noted. No change. McGillion 4.2 Comment leisure facilities in the village and also preserving 4.1 green spaces and rural views. I also support 4.3 development of the depot for a variety of uses including residential and that any other residential development should be small scale and in the areas outlined in the plan. 32 Robert All Support / I agree with the bulk of this plan. Accepted. Amend plan. Woodfor WB16 Comment I don’t feel enough consideration has been made to d increasing vehicle sizes and numbers of vehicles per Strengthen Policy WB16 to Amend Policy to “Traffic Management, household and the impact that will have on through include parking standards Improvements to local roads and Parking” traffic and access. Certainly safety is also an for new residential issue. Parking issues need to be considered. development and support Insert additional text: for improved parking provision in the village “Car parking centre To ensure that adequate parking provision is provided, parking proposals for residential development will be required to include allocated parking for each dwelling which meets the following standards: Dwellings with one bedroom 1 space Dwellings with 2/3 bedrooms 2 spaces Dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms 3 spaces Sheltered housing up to 2 bedrooms 1 space
14
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Tandem parking will be counted as one space.
In addition there should be available visitors’ off-road parking.”
Insert additional text into 4.7.21: “The 2011 Census Neighbourhood Statistics indicate that levels of car and van ownership in Weedon Bec (as with Daventry District) are higher than the national average. Only 12.9% of households in Weedon Bec had no access to a car, compared 25.8% in England, and 36.6% of households in Weedon Bec had 2 cars or vans compared 24.7% in England. There were also higher figures for households in Weedon Bec which had access to 3 and 4 or more cars and vans than for England as a whole. Table 1.7 above sets this out in more detail. The responses from the Regulation 14 consultation included concerns from residents that the Plan should address parking issues. The Plan aims to do this through encouraging walking and cycling for short journeys, and by setting out minimum parking standards to help ensure new housing development does not add to problems of on street parking on already congested streets.” 33 Stuart All Support Noted. No change. Fedden
34 Joy All Support Noted. No change. Fedden
15
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 35 Carol & All Support Chris & Carol Thurston fully support the draft Plan & Noted. No change. Chris look forward to its formal adoption. Hopefully, Thurston Gladman & their ilk will not be able to continue their nefarious speculations! Thanks for all the sterling work for the village
36 K Crouch All Support Noted. No change.
37 Viv 20 4 Support New Street. Parking is very bad, people park Noted. No change. Crouch 29 Comment completely on the path – not good or safe for Daventry pedestrians. Re parking and traffic & District management– see above Heart P29 I hope the Depot site is recognised for its proposed changes to Support national importance once again in my lifetime. WB16.. Group Improved lighting would be good on the Village Hall car park The suggestion for improved lighting on the Weedon Bec Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan Village Hall car park has – April 2015, well drafted. Thank you, Viv been referred for consideration to the General. Traffic management is a huge problem Village Hall committee. including parking, speed people drive in the village. Bramble Patch parking crazy at sale times. Cavalry Fields. No link into village by road/rover crops over. Size of New Housing Development. Threat – new large development (control numbers) choice of site issue. Viv 38 Ian All Support I am writing to register my support for the Noted. No change. Dunkley neighbourhood plan as presented during the consultation 39 Clive WB9/3 Comment Thank you for consulting Historic England about your Noted. No change. Fletcher Neighbourhood Plan.
16
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Principal The area covered by your Neighbourhood Plan Advisor, includes a number of designated heritage assets Historic including the former Weedon barracks, and the Places Church of St Peter & St Paul, listed at Grade II*. In line Historic with national planning policy, it is important that the England strategy for this area safeguards those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets so that they can be enjoyed by future generations.
We therefore welcome the draft vision and objectives for the town, which highlight the need to protect its unique heritage, and the associated policies designed to achieve this.
However, we advise that Draft Proposal WB9/3, an Accepted. Amend Plan. allocation of 50 houses on land directly opposite the grade II* listed Weedon barracks Blast Houses, would The Parish Council accepts Delete WB9/3 from the site allocations and run contrary to this aim, as it would harm the setting the advice from Historic renumber others. of Weedon Barracks. As a complex of grade II* listed England that development buildings, such harm would require the strongest in this area may harm the Amend 4.5.13 to include advice from Historic justification. setting of Weedon England: Barracks. 132. When considering the impact of a proposed “Area 6 was included in the Draft Plan as a development on the significance of a designated Consider any information site allocation for around 50 new houses heritage asset, great weight should be given to the from SEA. (Proposal WB9/3). However this site has asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, been deleted from the Submission Draft Plan the greater the weight should be. Significance can be Therefore the Parish following advice from Historic England. This harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the Council considers that this advised that “an allocation of 50 houses on heritage asset or development within its setting. As site allocation should be land directly opposite the Grade II* listed heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss deleted from the Plan. Weedon Barracks Blast Houses, would run should require clear and convincing justification. contrary to [the Plan’s aim to protect its Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, unique heritage] in as it would harm the park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial setting of Weedon Barracks. As a complex of harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the Grade II* listed buildings, such harm would 17
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, require the strongest justification. …. It would protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* also appear to run contrary to Draft Policy listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and WB1 Protecting the Local Landscape gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly Character and Views, as it would impact on exceptional. view 5 from Queens Street towards Weedon Depot (the Barracks). Historic England It would also appear to run contrary to Draft Policy therefore advise that this allocation is WB1 Protecting the Local Landscape Character and deleted. “ Views, as it would impact on view 5 from Queens Street towards Weedon Depot (the Barracks). Historic England therefore advise that this allocation is deleted.
WB9/2 Comment Site WB9/2 is also adjacent to the barracks and will Consider any information Amend Plan. also have impacts on its setting but the precise effect from SEA. of this is less easy to discern at this stage due to the Amend WB9/2 – refer to SEA. level of information supplied. We assume however Depending on outcome of that any allocation in these locations with be subject SEA may also need to to SEA, so this will no doubt be drawn out at that delete or amend this site stage, at which time it will also be important to assess allocation. the strategic importance of the site in terms of the future re-use of the Barracks.
4. Comment Turning to the Barracks themselves, in respect of Draft Accepted. Amend Plan. 3. Policy WB5 Weedon Depot, it would be worthwhile to 21 mention that the building is on the Historic England Insert text advising that Insert new second sentence into 4.3.21: Heritage at Risk Register. the building is on the “Weedon Barracks is currently on the Historic Heritage at Risk Register. England Heritage at Risk Register”. Historic England has produced a number of documents which your community might find helpful in helping to identify what it is about your area which makes it distinctive and how you might go about ensuring that
18
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N the character of the area is retained. These can be found at http://www.historicengland.org/advice/planning/plan -making/improve-your-neighbourhood You may also find the advice in ‘Planning for the Environment at the Neighbourhood Level’ useful. This has been produced by Historic England, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission. AS well as giving ideas on how you might improve your local environment, it also contains some useful further sources of information. This can be downloaded from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/201403280 84622/http://cdn.environment- agnecy.gov.uk/LIT_6524_7da381.pdf If you have any queries about this matter or would like to discuss anything further please do not hesitate to contact me.
40 Sylvia WB9/3 Comment Object to WB9/3 building proposed site Accepted. Delete WB9/3. Bebbingt on
41 Shirley WB9/3 Object Object strongly to proposal Accepted. Delete WB9/3. Read
42 Mary WB5 Support Noted. No change. Watson
43 Paul All Support All of it. Very impressive throughout document. Well Noted. No change. O’Hara done.
19
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 44 J Hesketh 83 Plan Support Plan 2+ 6 page 83 (or 87) would be a good place to Noted. No change. or develop new homes 87 45 Millie All Support Well done to everyone involved in village plan. Thank Noted. No change. Taylor you for all your time, energy, enthusiasm and dedication. 46 Millie Housing Support Plenty (ample) opportunities for new housing INSIDE Noted. No change. Taylor village boundary without increasing traffic DANGER! GOOD! 47 Lesley Housing Support The spread of new housing is good, plenty of infill. Noted. No change. Mitchell Not too many houses in any one place.
48 Ginette All Support Having read through the Draft Neighbourhood Plan Noted. No change. Pilkingto document, I find that it presents a well-balanced, well n written plan for future development in Weedon Bec. I fully support this plan and congratulate all.
49 Jonathan All Support / I am grateful for the diligent efforts made by all those Noted. No change. Whiteleg comment involved in composing the neighbourhood plan. Your g work is much appreciated.
The plan provides for another approx, 170 houses to be built in Weedon. This does raise concerns of infrastructure (eg school & medical) and I wold prefer a lower number, or very gradual development. Nevertheless, I fully agree that these proposed 170 dwellings are carefully placed in locations which allow a much more sustainable, safe and pleasant village environment that the present disputed planning application on New Street. Importantly, the neighbourhood plan housing proposal allows access to these properties from the periphery of the village, avoiding overloading the narrow streets in the centre (New Street, Bridge Street, Church Street, West Street. 20
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N
I agree strongly with the aim to preserve historic views from vantage points around the village. Such views are important to those of us who have chosen to move away from the urban environment. They promote calming thoughts in many of us who take time out of the day to appreciate them. 50 Mr Ross WB1 /All Support / Planning consultation: Notification of Formal Public Noted. No change. Holdgate Comment Consultation on the Weedon Bec Draft Natural Neighbourhood Development Plan (Regulation 14 Natural England were England Town and Country Planning, England Neighbourhood consulted by Daventry DC Planning (General) Regulations 2012) in relation to the screening Thank you for your consultation on the above dated opinion. Natural England 07 April 2015. agreed that a full SEA was required and the results of Natural England is a non-departmental public body. the SEA have informed the Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural content of the Submission environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed Plan. for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Natural England is supportive of measures to protect and enhance the natural environment which have been included within policy WB1 of the draft plan.
We note that the plan does not appear to include a screening report to assess the need for the plan to undergo Strategic Environmental Assessment or Habitats Regulations Assessment. From our records it does not appear that we have been consulted on such a screening assessment previously.
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. 21
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Ross Holdgate on 0300 060 4657. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected]. 51 Zoe All Comment The Group thought the plan had been given good Noted. No change. White thought and particularly liked the fact that an ageing Daventry population’s needs had been considered. Flore Parish Council were & District consulted on the Draft Disability Was the Plan developed in conjunction with Flore’s Plan and made Access Plan as Weedon is the nearest facilities provider for representations – see Forum health, dentist etc? below.
Community facilities would be better if made more The GP practice is largely central within Weedon to support a growing self-funded and the Parish population. Council is not aware of any plans for the practice to move premises at the current time. 52 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Julie Oakey 53 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon A well thought out plan Neighbo urhood Plan site Kit Edwards 22
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 54 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon A very in depth and interesting report. I hope Weedon Neighbo is allowed to retain its village and community spirit, urhood improve on what we have and not get over developed Plan site Isabella Masters 55 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Colin Pettit 56 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Sharon 57 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon We don’t need more houses in this village Neighbo urhood Plan site Kevin Hanbury 58 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon This has been developed by local people and is Neighbo sensible as well as providing homes. urhood Plan site
23
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Joe Freeston e 59 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Dick Young 60 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Andi Ritch 61 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Becky Dunkley 62 From All Support I fully support the plan. Noted. No change. Weedon Recognising the pinch point down South Street, a very Neighbo tight road and already a ‘rat run’, is welcomed. The urhood sympathetic, rather than large single development, Plan site nature of the plan is well thought out. Chris Horton 63 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo 24
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N urhood Plan site Laura Langley 64 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon The neighbourhood plan has my full and unqualified Neighbo support urhood Plan site Barry Pilkingto n 65 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site James Oakey 66 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Karen Mantz 67 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Andrew Leatherla nd 25
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 68 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Neighbo urhood Plan site Janet Coe 69 Shirley All Support A lot of time and thought has gone into the plan which Noted. No change. Read reflects in keeping with Weedon’s historic and rural setting. 70 Graham All Support Noted. No change. Nighting ale 71 Shirley All Support ` Noted. No change. Cooper 72 Lester All Support I would like to thank the working group who produced Noted. No change. Thomas the plan. A major concern for me is speculative housing developers submitting plans to build on inappropriate sites re Gladmans when the Neighbourhood Plan steering group as proposed ‘preferred sites’ All in all, I support the plan in its entirety and hope that it will be accepted. 73 Mary All Support I would like to thank the working group for producing Noted. No change. Thomas Comment such an extensive plan for Weedon Bec. The community have been consulted on many occasions giving plenty of opportunity to comment and contribute. The main areas for me were the focus of lack of facilities for young people, which also applies to the lack of gym and sports facilities. I am concerned by the traffic through the village. A big concern is the speculative housing developers attempting to build on inappropriate plots of land.
26
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N DDC have produced a plan for more suitable house building plots in and around the area. I support the plan and sincerely hope it will be accepted. 74 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Housing well set out plan for the village, with infill and Neighbo not too many houses in one area. Environment has urhood been given some good thoughts. The whole plan is Plan site brilliant, well done to all involved. Lesley Mitchell
75 From 50 4. Heritage Comment Map 6 Built Heritage Noted. Amend Plan. Weedon 3 Neighbo This is ok however I would suggest that the NP should Map 6 includes non - Insert new maps provided by NCC. urhood also include a map showing undesignated assets such designated heritage asset Plan site as ridge and furrow which is valued and highlighted such as ridge and furrow Lesley- within the documents as a whole and is subject to but may not have shown Ann WNJCS Policy BN5 up well on computer Mather screen. Northam ptonshir The Parish Council e County requested a more detailed Council map showing the extent of Planning ridge and furrow and a Services further map showing other heritage assets identified in the HER for inclusion in the plan. 76 From 90 WB9/5 Comment Land to the East of New Street, Weedon Bec Partially accepted. Amend Plan. Weedon The site is within the possible location of a 17th Neighbo Century plague pit or earlier burials. It is also within In consultations local Amend site former WB9/5 to include urhood an area of well preserved ridge and furrow. residents did not object to additional text: Plan site this site and the Parish 27
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Lesley- earthworks. Development in this area would be Council would like to “Development proposals will be required to Ann contrary to WNJCS Policy BN5 retain it if possible in the undertake a detailed archaeological survey of Mather Submission Plan. Insertion the site and record its value. Proposals will Northam of a further criteria in the should demonstrate careful consideration of ptonshir site allocation policy the need to protect any identified heritage e County should provide protection assets through appropriate siting and design.” Council for possible heritage Planning assets. Services 77 Amy All Comment I love the idea of greater social and sport space for the Noted. No change. Manfield village and as a member of cavalry fields I would encourage a solution to be found to providing a more direct link into the village from our estate. This would make us feel more part of the village and we would then be able to support the village shops and businesses more easily. At the moment if I’m getting in the car to pop to the shops – I may as well go to Daventry or Tesco or Sainsbury. We probably be more likely to use the pubs in the village too more often. Whatever the solution I hope the residents of cavalry fields would be further consulted. Good well thought out plan in its entirety overall 78 Chris All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Howard 79 Steve All Support I fully support the plan. An excellent documents Noted. No change. Edwards compiled very professionally and a great resource for planning in the village. Well done! 80 Charlotte All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. O’Conno r 81 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon The Neighbourhood plan addresses the village Neighbo communities vision for sustainable future expansion,
28
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N urhood we must retain the very think that makes Weedon Bec Plan site a great please to live. Michael Fuller 82 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon This plan won’t further increase the dangerous centre Neighbo village traffic flows and consequently won’t spoil our urhood village Plan site Antonio Kaskiewi cz 83 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon I’ve read the plan and support and agree with it. Neighbo urhood Plan site Blaine Taylor 84 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Really impressed with the plan, Weedon will be a Neighbo great place for my kids as they grow up urhood Plan site Amoop Palakkap arambil 85 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon Great plan, really impressed Neighbo urhood Plan site Christina Stewart 29
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 86 From All Support I fully support the plan Noted. No change. Weedon It looks good to my wife and I Neighbo urhood Plan site Jezz Barwick 87 From WB9/3 Comment/obj I have serious concerns regarding the suggested site Accepted. Delete WB9/3. Weedon ect allocation to the west of the village, WB9/3. There is Neighbo no doubt in my mind that this would further aggravate Delete WB9/3. Await SEA re WB9/2. urhood the traffic issues we already suffer at the Plumb Plan site crossroads when residents of this site wish to travel Await SEA re WB9/2. Heather south down the A5, this on top of parents taking their Smith children to school by car rather than walk as the WB9/2 Comment/obj distance would probably be deemed as too far. I also ect have concerns for site WB/2, such a development would be another isolated housing estate similar to Cavalry Fields, which has very bad access to village amenities and again would add additional traffic movements in order to easily access school, doctors and shops in the village So as to be clear, I do not at all support any Support developments of sites WB9/2 or WB9/3 I whole heatedly support the idea of getting property playing fields within the village. The existing facilities are simply not even close to being of a size commensurate with a settlement the size of Weedon Bec. 88 Sandra All Support Noted. No change. Rogers 89 Chris All Support Noted. No change. Radford 90 James All Support Noted. No change. Bird 30
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 91 Juliet All Support Noted. No change. Ross 92 John All Support Noted. No change. Ross 93 Emma All Support I have read the plan and agree wholeheartedly Noted. No change. Slasberg 94 Blaine All Support I’ve read the plan and I’m in agreement with it! Noted. No change. Taylor 95 Angela All Support I think this has been worked out very well and agree Noted. No change. Basketfie Comment with these ideas. ld 96 Mary WB7 Support Footbridge and foot paths from Cavalry Hill and Noted. No change. Watson Brookside into the village centre is a must for greater integration 97 Mary WB9 Support Like the idea of housing developments being spread Noted. No change. Watson around the village 98 Amy Jolic All Support I fully support the Weedon neighbourhood plan after Noted. No change. reading the documents. 99 K & G WB9/2 & Object Draft Neighbourhood Plan or How to shoot yourself in Accepted. Delete WB9/3. Bryan WB9/3 the foot We were appalled to see the proposal for the Delete WB9/3 Await SEA re WB9/2. development of houses at WB9/2 and WB9/3. Over the years, and currently with the proposed New Await SEA re WB9/2. Street development, the Parish Council and Residents have put forward valid objections to large infill development and development on green field sites. It now seems that the authors of this Plan wish to throw away all these valid objections and to give away the village! Gladman’s will be delighted and no doubt use the Plan as evidence in their second application. Furthermore, we don’t understand why the authors are doing this:
31
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 1. There is no obligation to offer up sites for development, ie no pressure from Daventry District Council. 2. Queen Street, in particular, is already a traffic bottle neck; to add 50 houses and their cars, say 100, to the street is an ill-conceived notion since all the concerns regarding New Street apply equally to Queen Street. Residents in proposed site WB9/3 will inevitable turn left and head down into the village to take advantage of the amenities; doctors; dentist, shops etc, thus adding to the congestion at the crossroads. 3. Who benefits from the development of green field sites? The land owners – yes and the property developer- yes. Why are the authors of the Plan being so obliging? We do hope that the Plan can now be revised to remove these green field developments, failing which we will certainly vote against the whole Plan when it comes to referendum. 100 Mike 83 Site 5 Object Green open areas lost to development Noted. No change. Morgan /8 100 Village is being developed along west side, so the 4 houses centre is becoming offset to the east – needs to The proposed site develop to, east, south and north to maintain allocations were put balance/location of village centre to rest of village. forward in the Draft Plan Schooling a concern, +100 houses with increase school following consideration of children. Village school is already at capacity having submitted sites. This is in just been extended. North of A45 or close to A5 line with government would give geographical balance. guidance and best practice in preparing neighbourhood plans, and assists with demonstrating deliverability as site owners / agents have 32
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N proposed sites in which that they have an interest. The Plan includes a range of sites, in areas around the village, taking into consideration the protection of local landscape and built heritage assets.
Developer contributions would be required to support investment in local education provision as required by the local education authority. 101 Mike 88 WB9/2 Support Preserves openness of village, yet offers a good Noted. Await SEA re WB9/2. Morgan 50 compromise with little negative impact. housing units and Most of the development proposed is west of current mixed village centre. Need to maintain ‘centre’ location so with suggest developing east and south of village centre economi c uses 102 Lisa 44 4. Support Noted. No change. Morgan 2. 23 103 Lisa 42 4. Support Noted. No change. Morgan 2. 6 104 Sue 91 W Support Question: Could there be a specific policy that calls Accepted. Amend Plan. Butler B out the need for planning out crime rather than it Weedon 11 being included within WB11? It is important for all Include an additional Insert new policy and renumber others: Bec new housing to ensure it does not because a problem policy specifically 33
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Neighbo especially as the number of Police Officers available addressing the need to “New housing proposals should incorporate urhood seems to be reducing and there is much more reliance design out crime. “Secure by Design” principles wherever Watch on volunteers like NHW or Special Constables to help possible to reduce opportunities for crime”. the Police 105 Sue 17 4 Object The wording needs to be changed to read: Plan Accepted. Amend Consultation Statement. Butler policies should protect existing facilities and support the provision of new facilities. Developer However this section has Amend wording to: contributions including Community Infrastructure Levy been deleted from the “Plan policies should protect existing facilities should be required to support new provision where Submission Plan and and support the provision of new facilities. gaps are identified. moved to the Consultation Developer contributions including Community This is detailed on Page 19 but CIL appears to not be Statement. Infrastructure Levy should be required to included in all cases when I think it should support new provision where gaps are identified.”
106 Sue 18 3 Object The wording needs to be changed to read: Plan As above As above. Butler policies should protect existing facilities and support the provision of new facilities. Developer contributions including Community Infrastructure Levy should be required to support new provision where gaps are identified. This is detailed on Page 19 but CIL appears to not be included in all cases when I think it should 107 Sue 22 7 Comment New development should include proposals to Accepted. Amend Consultation Statement. Butler manage traffic more effectively. However this section has Insert additional wording to final sentence on Can this be qualified - does it mean in relation to the been deleted from the p22 to read ”New development throughout Depot plans/policies as it is immediately after the Submission Plan and the plan area should include proposals to Planning Policy statement about the depot or in moved to the Consultation manage traffic more effectively”. general for the village - can it be made clearer please Statement.
Amend wording to improve clarity.
34
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 108 Sue 29 Po Comment If promoting the Weedon Bec on the map - can we add Accepted. Amend Plan. Butler in to this section 'making more of the Nene Way' long t distance footpath and signage for walks in general ? The Plan should encourage P29 Section 8 insert: 8 need walkers to stop in “'To make more of the Nene Way long the village and use local distance footpath and signage for walks in services; better signage. general”. 109 Sue 38 Draft Support Noted. No change. Butler WB1 110 Sue 43 4. Object Not accepted. No change. Butler 2. 10 The two housing areas mentioned are not located within easy walking distance of Croft Way field for young children.
111 Sue 43 4. Object The GP surgery whilst it is a service to the village is a Not accepted. No change. Butler 2. private concern. I do not agree that land and the 14 proposed access SHOULD be made available to the This is set out as an issue rear of the surgery from Farthinstone Road and the surgery has had (irrespective of there being a planning application the opportunity to lodged on that site). comment as part of the consultation process. The surgery should be endeavouring to work with the space they have and improve to better utilise the car The need for parking is park area in my opinion. The surgery are now doing unlikely to diminish more over the phone appointments and the like so the noticeably as patients need for parking should improve. come from Flore and Heyford and in the future The Surgery should be asked to work with their may possibly come from patients for better and more considerate parking and Daventry. not ignore the requests of the village.
35
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N
112 Sue 44 4. Object If the school is to expand into Croft Way playing field, I Noted. No change. Butler 2. object to the space being purely for school use and 20 would want to see some additional thought put into This is not a planning this such that the facilities that are then added to for policy matter, but a the school are available for public use e.g. the Netball community facilities / court area and that the land is not just taken away open space management purely for school use only. issue.
The Parish Council should raise this as a concern outside the NDP process if proposals come forward for the school to expand onto Croft Way Field. 113 Sue 44 4. Object For same reasons as listed in 4.2.20 Noted. No change. Butler 2. 23 As Ref 44 above. 114 Sue 47 W Support However, please can the 'in principle' be removed Accepted. Amend Plan. Butler B from statement 1 as support should be provided 2 based on planning policy and not 'in principle' Delete “in principle” from Delete “in principle” from WB2 and any other support. Policy WB3 has no mention of 'in principle' WB2 and any other policies. and as such the statements in the policies need to be policies. consistent 115 Sue 48 W Support Noted. No change. Butler B 3 116 Sue 54 W Support Noted. No change. Butler B 4
36
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 117 Sue 57 W Support Noted. No change. Butler B 5 118 Sue 65 8 Comment/Obj Is it possible for the Closed Churchyard to be included Noted. No change. Butler ect as a green / quiet space in order to help this area be better looked after and used? It also adds to / extends The churchyard falls under the natural green corridor of PuddleBank already the responsibility of the mentioned but I do not see any real focus placed on church. The Plan is a ensuring the area is well maintained for the future? planning policy document and does not have a role in persuading land owning bodies to manage their land more effectively.
Para 8. Refers to all cemeteries and churchyards in the sentence “All are well kept and much appreciated as quiet spaces”.
No change required.
119 Sue 69 6 Comment Can there be mention of improvements to walkways Noted and accepted. Amend Plan. Butler under both sets of bridges on Church and Bridge street and to include a footpath between the bridges on This was not raised during Insert additional sentence to final paragraph Church Street ? Was this even called out at initial the informal public before 4.4.7: consultation ? Developer contributions could be used consultations. The “In addition pedestrian access under the to make these improvements roadways are very narrow bridges on Church and Bridge Street should at these points and there be improved to increase safety and is unlikely to be space for accessibility”. footpaths as well as vehicular access. However provision of visual 37
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N differentiation may through say line painting may be a possibility.
Insert additional sentence suggesting the Parish Council would support investigation into improving pedestrian safety under the bridges.
120 Sue 70 W Support However, please can the 'in principle' be removed Accepted. Amend plan. Butler B from para 1 as support should be provided based on 6 planning policy and not 'in principle' support. Policy As above, remove “In Delete “In principle” from all relevant policies WB3 has no mention of 'in principle' and as such the principle” from all policies. as above. statements in the policies need to be consistent 121 Sue 72 Ta Comment Why isn't all ridge and furrow land to the southern Noted but not accepted. No change. Butler bl edge of the village included as green space - there is e an equal amount of Ridge and Furrow to rear South St Ridge and furrow See Ref 75 above – a new map has been 4 and Church St landscapes are noted in included showing ridge and furrow around the Plan and identified as the village. non designated heritage assets. The NPPF requires local green spaces to meet specific criteria including that “the area is not an extensive tract of land.” It is unlikely that significant areas of ridge and furrow would meet the required criteria and therefore they would not qualify as local green spaces.
38
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Further information in relation to non designated heritage assets including ridge and furrow has been included in the Plan following submissions from Northamptonshire County Council.(See Ref 75 above) 122 Sue 74 W Support Why isn't all ridge and furrow land to the southern As above. No change. Butler B comment edge of the village included as green space - there is 7 an equal amount of Ridge and Furrow to rear South St and Church St 123 Sue 74 Comment Can the land earmarked as Site 1 be put forward for Noted. No change. Butler possible SSSI. Also flagged as an area that the village would like to have public access to? Currently the SSSIs are designated by land is in private ownership and there are no public Natural England and footpaths on the east section of that land therefore it would be beyond the scope of the plan to designate or identify such an area.
The Parish Council accepts the point about the footpaths but this is included on p77, Map 11.
124 Sue 76 W Support Can there be access opened up from the end of Noted. No change. Butler B Comment Riverside Drive to land adjacent Depot to also 8 encourage a circular walk? The flats at the end of The suggestion could be Riverside are DDH and a footpath width strip could be considered further by the bought from them to enable access to this area via Parish Council in relation Community Buy scheme? to a Community Right to Buy scheme. Refer to 39
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Parish Council for possible future action. 125 Sue 86 W WB9/1 Support Interesting that the site between the A45 and the Noted. No change. Butler B Comment canal on Weedon side (nearby the Heart of England) 9 opposite Harmans Way exit to A45 was not put The Plan includes in Policy forward in call for sites. When the DDL is built this WB9 a sentence referring area would lend itself to some useful infill and to with to small infill sites which very little detriment to many of our existing residents. should cover this and Is it possible for this site to be earmarked for housing other proposals that come even though the landowner has not come forward ? forward over the plan period. 126 Sue 86 W WB9/2 Object If this has a possibility for up to 100 houses as detailed Noted. Butler B in the call for sites information, why does the NPlan Consider SEA findings 9 have to limit to the approximately 50 housing units The “100” referred to is with mixed housing and light industry use? the potential capacity for Amend WB9/2? the whole site as I would rather see some flexibility up to allow submitted. This overall additional number of houses minus the light industry. number was reduced to I state this as we know that in the future the VOSA site minimise the impact on on Cavalry fields is in question and should this close, views of the Depot from there would be more suitable land there for industrial the south and west. The units allowing additional houses to be included at site VOSA site is still in use and WB9/2. the owners have advised that there is no question over its future but the suggestion is reasonable.
Consider any information from SEA.
Depending on outcome of SEA may also need to delete or amend this site allocation. 40
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N
Amend Plan?
127 Sue 86 W WB9/3 Object I do not support this proposal and this proposed policy Accepted - See Ref 39 Delete WB9/3. Butler B should be removed from the plan. It is a site that is far above. 9 too contentious, will not allow the current residents the enjoyment of living in the village and will ruin the Delete WB9/3. views to the Depot. The proposal may state build a road etc to access the site to Queen Street but this is tantamount to opening up the whole of the area to the rear of Queen Street to back land development and should not happen. A proposal off Holm Close was subject to appeal and the refusal upheld so this should be respected.
Site WB9/4 should be extended to take a few more Not accepted. No change. properties rather than including this site. The Parish Council considers that extending WB9/4 would lead to housing on higher land and this would impinge on view from Depot to the hills to south of this site.
No change.
128 Sue 86 W WB9/4 Object This site should include more houses than the Accepted. Amend Plan. Butler B proposal as per the call for sites assessment suggests 9 that up to 30 properties would be viable. If designed Refer to comment later by Amend Site allocation former WB9/4 to refer well and with some consideration for the old farm Steve Lucas, land agent. to “approximately 30 houses”. building and houses (that could also be improved / refurbished to provide houses again) it could provide Increasing the number of an accessible and area ideal for development with an houses on this site would 41
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N access point onto Queen Street (at the farm yard help to offset some of the entrance) and perhaps one a little further up the lane reduction in housing towards Everdon road thus reducing impact on centre numbers following of the village. proposed deletion of some / one site.
Increase the number of houses proposed in the site allocation policy to “approximately 30 houses”.
Amend Plan.
129 Sue 86 W WB9/5 Support Noted. No change. Butler B 9 130 Sue 86 W WB9/6 Support Noted. No change. Butler B 9 131 Sue 86 W WB9/7 Support However, if there should be a ransom strip set aside to Not accepted. No change. Butler B allow pedestrian access to the site earmarked for 9 recreation and sports pitches. It would not be appropriate to require a Page 90 for this policy: This should say houses similar ransom strip. Planning to Crosse Close and not Eton Close. Better still it policies should not be too should be more aligned to a courtyard development prescriptive and access etc like the adjacent Manor Farm. would be addressed through the development management (planning application) process.
42
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 132 Sue 86 W WB9/8 Support Noted. No change. Butler B 9 133 Sue 91 W Support However, please can the 'in principle' be removed Accepted – “In principle” Amend plan. Butler B from para 1 as support should be provided based on has been deleted from all 10 planning policy and not 'in principle' support. Policy policies. Amend Policy. WB3 has no mention of 'in principle' and as such the statements in the policies need to be consistent Accepted. Insert Insert “and housing for older residents” into additional wording as title. Could this statement also include 'the addition of proposed. another development like Riverside Court' - Insert additional wording after “supported”: Bungalows featured in the Housing needs survey so “Housing schemes are encouraged to include perhaps this would be a beneficial development within housing for older residents”. the next 15 years and an ageing population which may result in larger homes becoming available for families if downsizing takes place. 134 Sue 91 W Support Noted. No change. Butler B 11 135 Sue 94 W Support Noted. No change. Butler B 12 136 Sue 97 W Support Noted. No change. Butler B 13 137 Sue 10 W Support However building design could result in Flood Zone Noted. No change. Butler 7 B 3a/b being acceptable assuming GFL is above worst 14 case flood level (as detailed in WB15) 138 Sue 10 W Support Noted. No change. Butler 8 B 15 139 Sue 11 W Support Can Tandem parking be discouraged? It has proven to Accepted. No change. Butler 0 B not work and results in cars on the road thus adding to 16 the pinch points or causing more 43
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N See proposed amendment to Policy WB16 above. 140 Sue 11 W support Can the statement for: all diversion route signage from Accepted. Amend Plan. Butler 1 B Daventry for M40 or from M1 / A5 to use the new 17 DDL and not existing A45 Amend wording as Amend Policy: Amend point 10 to include: suggested. ’10 Diversionary signage should be provided to encourage traffic to use the new Daventry Development Link Road (DDL)”. 141 From All Comment I agree with the plan in the main but think the number Accepted. No further change – see proposed changes Weedon of houses should be reduced. The locations on the relating to allocated sites and revised housing Neighbo neighbourhood plan are more appropriate locations The submission plan figures. urhood than the Gladman proposed development off New should include a revised Plan site Street housing target figure following the deletion of a site/sites and taking into consideration the outcome of the appeal on the site at New Street giving a further commitment of 120 houses.
142 Stewart Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Noted. No change. Patience WB5 Weedon Bec Pre-submission Draft Neighbourhood Anglian Plan. Please find enclosed comments on behalf of AS a statutory consultee Water Anglian Water. I would be grateful if you could confirm Anglian Water Authority Authority that you have received this response. should be consulted by Draft Policy WB5 – Weedon Depot Daventry DC on planning It is proposed that existing buildings and structures on applications as and when the Weedon Depot should be sympathetically restored they come forward, as and re-used for a mix of uses. part of the development Policy WB5 outlines criteria which will be used to management process. determine planning applications for development on this site. 44
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N However at this stage the precise mix of use(s) which is likely to come forward is currently unknown. Therefore Anglian Water would wish to comment further as part of the planning application process on any proposals which may come forward on the Weedon Depot site. 143 Stewart WB9 Draft Policy WB9 - Site Allocations: New Housing Accepted. No change. Patience Development Anglian It is proposed to allocate a number of sites to provide The Parish Council is Water a total of 172 dwellings. The foul drainage from the aware of this and would Authority above sites are in the catchment of Weedon Water support proposals by Recycling Centre, which has limited capacity to treat Anglian Water to enlarge the flows from these sites. this facility. 144 Stewart WB9/1 Draft Proposal WB9/1 Dodford Wharf Farm, Weedon Accepted. Amend Plan. Patience Junction Anglian It is proposed to allocate this site for 41 dwellings. Insert additional policy to Insert additional supporting text after Policy: Water Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of section 4.7 requiring Authority housing development on this site. However it is appropriate “Anglian Water Authority made a number of important to note that there is expected to be a need improvements in the representations to the Draft Plan during the to make improvements to the water supply network water supply network and Regulation 14 consultation. The Authority to enable the development of this site. There may also enhancements to the foul generally had no objections to the proposed be a need for foul network enhancements to enable network before site allocations but advised that “it is the development of this site. development commences. important to note that there is expected to be a need to make improvements to the water supply network to enable the development [sites]. There may also be a need for foul network enhancements to enable the development of [sites].”
Insert new additional policy and renumber others:
New Policy WB18: “Water Supply and Foul Drainage 45
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N
Before development commences, appropriate improvements in the water supply network and enhancements to the foul network may be required. Developers will be expected to work with the local water authority to ensure that adequate provision is made for the new development and to minimise any adverse impacts on the existing networks”.
145 Stewart WB9/2 Draft Proposal WB9/2 Land East of Ordnance Road Noted. Refer to SEA – This site may be amended. Patience It is proposed to allocate this site for a mix of housing Anglian and employment uses including 50 dwellings. Refer to SEA – may be Water Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of amended. Authority housing development on this site. However it is important to note that there is expected to be a need to make improvements to the water supply network to enable the development of this site. There may also be a need for foul network enhancements to enable the development of this site. 146 Stewart WB9/3 Draft Proposal WB9/3 Land between southern Noted. Site deleted from the Plan. Patience boundary of Nene Valley / Lovers Lane Local Green Anglian Space and houses on Queen Street /Tithe Road and This site is deleted from Water Farm Road the Plan following Authority It is proposed to allocate this site for 50 dwellings. objections by Historic Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of England and taking into housing development on this site. However there is consideration the results expected to be a need to make improvements to the of the SEA. water supply network to enable the development of this site. There may also be a need for foul network enhancements to enable the development of this site. It is also important to note that there is an existing sewer is located on this site. Where this is the case, 46
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N the site layout should be designed to take these into account; this existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If it is not possible to accommodate the existing sewers within the design then diversion may be possible under section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or entering into a build over/near agreement may be considered. 147 Stewart WB9/4 Draft Proposal WB9/4 Land to south of Queen Street Noted. No change. Patience and to east and west of Gayton Lane Anglian It is proposed to allocate this site for 15 dwellings. Water Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of Authority housing development on this site. 148 Stewart WB9/5 Draft Proposal WB9/5 Land to east of New Street Noted. No change. Patience It is proposed to allocate this site for 5 dwellings. Anglian Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of This is a detailed matter Water housing development on this site. and will be addressed as Authority However it is important to note that there is an part of the development existing sewer is located on this site. Where this is the management process if a case, the site layout should be designed to take these planning application is into account; this existing infrastructure is protected submitted. by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If it is not possible to accommodate the existing sewers within the design then diversion may be possible under section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or entering into a build over/near agreement may be considered. 149 Stewart WB9/6 Draft Proposal WB9/6 Land off Church Street Noted – see above. No change. Patience
47
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Anglian It is proposed to allocate this site for 1 dwelling. Water Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of Authority housing development on this site. However it is important to note that there is an existing sewer is located on this site. Where this is the case, the site layout should be designed to take these into account; this existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If it is not possible to accommodate the existing sewers within the design then diversion may be possible under section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or entering into a build over/near agreement may be considered. 150 Stewart WB9/7 Draft Proposal WB9/7 Land off Bridge Street Noted. No change. Patience It is proposed to allocate this site for 8 dwellings. Anglian Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of Water housing development on this site. Authority 151 Stewart WB9/8 Draft Proposal WB9/8 Land at Rear of 25-27 High Noted – see above. No change. Patience Street Anglian It is proposed to allocate this site for 2 dwellings. Water Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of Authority housing development on this site. However it is important to note that there is an existing sewer is located on this site. Where this is the case, the site layout should be designed to take these into account; this existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If it is not possible to accommodate the existing sewers within 48
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N the design then diversion may be possible under section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or entering into a build over/near agreement may be considered. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know.
152 John All Support Noted. No change. Evans 153 Margaret All Support Noted. No change. Evans 154 Sally All Support I think this is an excellent plan and I fully support it Noted. No change. Pearson 155 George All Support Noted. No change. Pearson 156 Martin All Comment / Highways England welcomes the opportunity to Noted. No change. Seldon support comment on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan for the Highway Weedon Bec Parish area. Highways England notes that s England the Plan sets out a vision and objectives for Weedon Parish and contains policies to guide decisions on planning applications and is to be used alongside the Daventry District Local Plan, West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is the role of Highways England to maintain the efficient operation of the strategic road network, whilst acting as a delivery partner to national economic growth. Highways England’s main interest lies with the Plan area being in close proximity to the strategic road network, namely the A5 and the M1. In this regard, it is noted that growth is expected to be small scale across the Parish Council area with a total of 172 dwellings to be constructed across multiple sites, with none of the sites requiring direct access onto the strategic road network. This indicates that 49
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N impacts on the strategic road network from proposed development are likely to be minimal. It is also noted in the Draft Plan that Neighbourhood Plan policies should include supporting improvements to pedestrian and cycle routes in order to reduce the reliance on the private car. This is welcomed by Highways England as a means of reducing the traffic demand on the highway network. Highways England does not have any additional comments to provide in relation to this consultation document and trusts that the above comments are useful.
157 Isabella All Support Overall we are generally happy with Weedon, but do Noted. No change. Masters agree various area’s need up keeping eg pot holes, Weedon dog fouling etc, public areas, Jubilee and other areas Matters such as repairing Chapter such has the area around the Church. We do realise pot holes and tackling dog House there has to be more houses built, but we do not want fouling are not planning Craft our village to grow to big, as we like the community policy matters and cannot Group feel about the village and if it get to big we are be addressed in a NDP. worried we may lose this. The housing numbers in the Submission Plan have been reduced following the outcome of the appeal of the New Street Site and objections to site allocations. Overall the Plan aims to provide a strategy to enable the village to grow sustainably and to provide appropriate housing, employment and local 50
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N services over a 14 year period. The Parish Council agrees that the strong sense of local community in the village is a significant strength and this is noted in the Plan.
158 Danny 42 2. 4 Support / Weedon Football Club fully supports the community Noted. No change. Chapman 4 comment building and knows that the whole community will Weedon benefit from this facility as well as the football club. Football Over the past year the football club has grown from Club just three adult teams and one junior team to now three adult teams and currently four junior team’s even possibly six juniors before the start of next season. So we really need a good facility that everyone can use. There is also a need for more pitches as if Weedon fc keeps growing the way it is then the jubilee field will not be able to cope with the amount of games played on it. 159 Danny 42 2. 4 Support Noted. No change. Chapman 5 Weedon Football Club 160 Danny 42 2. 4 Support Noted. No change. Chapman 6 Weedon Football Club 161 Danny 42 2. 4 Support Noted. No change. Chapman 7
51
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Weedon Football Club 162 Danny 42 2. 4 Support Noted. No change. Chapman 8 Weedon Football Club 163 Jean All Support I agree with and support all the proposals in the plan. Noted. No change. Lawrenc Comment A residential care home would be good given the e difficulties that elderly residents have when travelling miles to visit ‘spouses’ in other car homes. 164 Sheila 91 4. Comment There is not always a warden on site at Riverside. Noted – see Ref 26 above. No further change. Moll 5. There is no longer a warden’s flat. I do support the 15 housing proposals in the Neighbourhood Plan – along with all the other proposals. Good Job! Agree with the proposed housing development sites, and the priority in which they have been placed 165 Tony 17 4 Support WSA would hope that the plans for a new Community Noted. No change. Wincott /1 & Facility building at Jubilee Field will enable these Weedon 8 5 shortfalls to be filled and provide additional space that Sports can be used for the village. Financial support from Associati developer contributions would be advisable for both on providing a new facility as well as providing improvements to existing facilities like Village Hall, Scout Hut, Chapel School Rooms and Chapter House. Overall new sports / open area facilities are required outside of the existing – i.e. identification of other areas. 166 Tony 26 2. Support Any development at the school should not be done in Accepted. No change. Wincott 10 isolation. If the school is expanded to provide as per Weedon .2 the example a Sports Hall, it MUST be able to be used However the owners of Sports by the Residents of the village. Equally, the proposed the land, Weedon Bec 52
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Associati building at Jubilee Field could be of benefit to the Trust have reservations on school going forward irrespective of the building being about building on Croft a few minutes’ walk away from the school. It requires Way field. The Parish 'joined up thinking' from the school, school governors, Council will continue to parish council and village groups to achieve a facility work with the relevant that is not just limited to school use. bodies to progress to a positive solution.
167 Tony 42 4. Object Why can't the school use Jubilee Field? They utilise Noted – this is a matter for No change. Wincott 2. Croft Way for sports days which is not fenced and the school. Weedon 6 open to the public. Dogs and fouling can still be an Sports issue on Croft Way Playing field. Associati on 168 Tony 42 4. Object Any suitable land identified e.g. WB6/1, needs to have Noted but this is not a No change. Wincott 2. the correct ownership and responsibilities planning policy matter and Weedon 7 apportioned to the land if acquired. WSA would so will not be addressed in Sports assume that if acquired this would become the NDP. Associati community space ? on As such, a proposal such as this would require full The Parish Council will support from Parish Council in order to progress be work with the WSA to that under the auspices of a Playing Field Association, progress activity under the the Parish Council or another volunteer group like appropriate mechanism of WSA or Football Club. WSA will be prepared to help the Localism Act. but not in an ongoing financial manner for upkeep and maintenance (much like Jubilee Field is owned and maintained by the Parish Council). Localism Act 2011 Community Right to Bid could be an option to negotiate for this space for sporting facilities and should be referenced. 169 Tony 42 4. Object In reference to the statement 'However it would be Accepted. No change. Wincott 2. fair to say that many people also objected that an Weedon 8 open space intended for informal recreation for all There is strong feeling Sports ages be built on' Whilst open space may be utilised about the use of Jubilee 53
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Associati and no longer be available, WSA feel that this Field. Respondent’s view is on outweighs the need for additional community facilities noted. However this and that there are limited (central) sites in the village section sets out local where this can be achieved peoples’ views and so it would be inappropriate to change the wording.
170 Tony 44 4. Object If development were to take place by the school onto Noted. No change. Wincott 2. Croft Way playing field, which is designated as a public Weedon 23 space for recreational use, it should be for sporting This is a management Sports and recreational use only and still available for issue however not a Associati Residents use. Croft Way field could be used for sports planning policy matter. on or a pitch which could be used by the village to supplement the lack of facilities for a village the size of Weedon. 171 Tony 47 4. Comment A purpose built sports hall would be seen as an Noted. No change. Wincott 2. aspiration for the village, as very few villages have Weedon 31 such large facilities. The plan for the Community Sports Sports Facility building at Jubilee Field could always be Associati reviewed to make the space bigger however this on would require local Parish support and significant funding from funding bodies to achieve this and should not be precluded from being a bigger space. The facility would serve more than just the Jubilee Field and provide community facilities for more than just sports. 172 Tony 47 WB2 Support Please can the in principle be removed - a policy either Accepted – see Ref 47 No further change. Wincott supports or it doesn't above. Weedon Sports Associati on
54
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N 173 Tony 52 4. WB5 Comment Perhaps the Depot could also offer up recreational Accepted. Amend Plan. Wincott 3. space to supplement what is available in the village Weedon 9 with a ceiling height for badminton etc ? Amend Policy WB5 to Amend Policy: Sports Plus an outdoor all weather pitch in the lower section include the suggestion. Include additional bullet point: Associati to the south of the site. “sports provision such as indoor recreational on / sports facilities, tennis courts, and an outdoor all weather pitch in the lower section to the south of the site.“ 174 Tony 57 WB5 Object Under the range of uses section: WSA request that Accepted. See 173 above – no further change. Wincott Sports Provision is also included to this policy? There Weedon should be enough space for say Tennis Courts or all Sports weather pitch on site - changing facilities could utilise Associati the proposed building on Jubilee Field. on Policy should acknowledge that this is under private ownership but perhaps with negotiation the space could be secured and remain as a sustainable space in perpetuity for sports. Developer Contributions could be used for investment. Localism Act 2011 Community Right to Bid could be an option to negotiate for space for sporting facilities. 175 Tony 60 4. Object With investment, from Developer Contributions, Croft Accepted. Amend Plan. Wincott 4. Way could be made suitable for sport. It used to be Weedon 2 used for football years ago so with investment to level Amend wording as Insert additional wording as a final sentence Sports the field it could be made more appropriate for sports suggested. to 4.4.2: Associati use and perhaps be utilised further by the school “However with investment, from Developer on Contributions and other sources Croft Way could be made suitable for sport. It has been used for football in the past, and with appropriate investment to level the field it could be improved for sports use and used further for that purpose by the school.” 176 Tony 64 5 Support In full support that Weedon is seriously lacking in Noted. No change. Wincott sports provision especially in comparison to nearby villages that have much more to offer. 55
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Weedon Sports Associati on 177 Tony 70 WB6 Object Please can the in principle be removed - a policy either Noted – see above. No further change. Wincott supports or it doesn't. Weedon Sports Associati on 178 Tony 70 WB6 Support Assuming that Outdoor Facilities mean both playing Noted. Amend Plan. Wincott pitches and changing facilities / building? Future Weedon development in Weedon will make it essential to Insert “including changing Insert “including changing facilities” after Sports develop new venues of a modern nature and the WSA facilities” to improve “Outdoor sports facilities”. Associati proposal would meet that need. clarity. on 179 Tony 71 WB6/1 Support This area would need to be leased or purchased and Accepted – see 119 above. No further change. Wincott would require huge investment to make the land Weedon suitable for pitches. This would require major Sports investment and would likely to be over and above Associati New Housing levies. on Consideration to include a footpath to this field area from Bridge Street should be included. As such, this proposal would require full support from Parish Council in order to progress be that under the auspices of a Playing Field Association, the Parish Council or another volunteer group like WSA or Football Club. 180 Tracey All Support I support the Neighbourhood Plan Noted. No change. Hart 181 Sue All Comment A commendable document and insight to Weedon Bec, Noted. No change. Kerrison revealing an historical, interesting and vibrant community. 56
Consulte
Ref. e Details Comments received No. P
olicy No.
D
P
Page No.Page Para. No. Vision/Objecti ve/ Support / Object / Comment Parish Council Consideration Amendments to N Flore To continue the community spirit and involvement Parish shown by producing the Neighbourhood Plan for the Council existing and future residents, the visions for a new train station, the Ordnance Depot and additional sport facilities are vital and should be encouraged and supported by local and central national government. It would be a travesty if the Ordnance Depot was not utilised to accommodate the vast area for business and recreational purposes which would create local employment opportunities and start-up businesses, whilst also encouraging tourism with the inclusion of a museum, a train station an asset! The potential for developing this site is incredible and should not be understated. Current lack of sports facilities needs to be addressed due to the recent increase of dwellings and residents, (and projected developments), and is of paramount importance for a healthy, physical lifestyle, which is being promoted by health authorities locally and nationally. The County Council’s reluctance to allow use of school premises for sporting activities out of school hours is behind the times of modern living and not conducive for a healthy active community involvement and could, in the interim for a purpose built facility, be an important bridge for those wishing, and needing to increase physical activity.
57