1 Weedon Bec Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan Regulation 14

Weedon Bec Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan Regulation 14 Consultation
Part I
Consultation Response Table 1

Consulte e Details
Ref. No.
Comments received

12
Marine Manage ment Org
All All

Comment

Thank you for inviting the Marine Management

organisation (MMO) to comment on the above consultation. I can confirm that the MMO has no comments to submit in relation to this consultation as Weedon is not within our remit. I have studied the draft plan both on-line and at the chapel rooms. Firstly thank you to all those involved in 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.
Noted. Noted.
No change.

No change.

Nina

Kaskiewi cz
Support and comment

3

Eileen

Perry

All

Support and

Comment
After many cups of coffee, I managed to read the Plan. Noted. 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 change.
No further comments

1

Ref. No.

4

Judith

Allnatt
82 o

All

Object

I am writing to lodge my objection to Draft

Neighbourhood Development Plan (DNP) proposals for WB9/2 and WB9/3 were

The proposed sites at

Consider SEA findings

nwar ddevelopment sites at WB9/2 and WB9/3, or indeed any proposal for large scale development at Weedon. The DNP itself states that 81% of recent questionnaire for sites and site put forward following consideration of the call
Amend WB9/2 and delete WB9/3.

respondents favoured only ‘small scale developments, assessment report, and 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. taking into consideration the results of various stages of community 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 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
The Local Plan is currently being reviewed by Daventry District Council, and informal discussions with planning policy 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. officers have supported the view that Weedon Bec is likely to move up the settlement hierarchy due its range of shops, community facilities, school and employment areas. This would mean in turn that Weedon will be required to accommodate a higher proportion of housing, than, say smaller villages with fewer
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 services.

2

Ref. No.

a majority of respondents don’t think we have a

shortage of housing: 64% considered availability (of housing) good or fair.
The JCS sets out an overall housing figure for the 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 Plans to offer up specific sites, saying: “Please be aware that you do not have to allocate sites for required to make a contribution towards this 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 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. not have to allocate sites. However, by doing so, the Plan sets out a clear, positive strategy for the future development of the area, and allows local people to have a greater 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

Ref. No.

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 size and impact to those we have been battling to stop! required west of the pinch point, allowing residents to leave the village on the Everdon Road to the A45 & DDL. The village centre is walkable from the sites.
Arguments against the suggestion of these sites are: 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

4

Ref. No.

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

Ref. No.

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

Allnatt
82 onwar d
WB9/2 WB9/3

Object

I am writing to lodge my objection to Draft

Noted as above – see Ref

Consider SEA findings

Neighbourhood Development Plan (DNP) proposals for 4. development sites at WB9/2 and WB9/3, or indeed any proposal for large scale development at Weedon. The DNP itself states that 81% of recent questionnaire

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.
Amend WB9/2 and delete WB9/3.
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

Ref. No.

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

Ref. No.

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

Ref. No.

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

7
Jennifer Webb
All All
Support Support
Noted. Noted.
No change.

No change.

Mrs

Maureen Franks

8

9
Mr Brian All Taylor

All

Support

A good plan overall

Noted.

No change.

Mr John Wilshire Weedon Sports

88

WB9/2

Support/

Comment

Area WB9/2. I think more could be made of this area.

Partially accepted.

Amend Plan.

It is the most desirable of those proposed in that it slopes and is south facing. From early designs of the bypass, it appeared that the roundabout connecting onto the A45 would be to the north of WB9/2.
As the proposed roundabout on the link road has now been moved Insert into second paragraph:

Further east from WB9/2 a “This could include, for instance, a road

Amend Policy:
Associati on direct link in addition to the A45 would not be practical. However a link from that site to the end linking the site to the west end of Fusilier Way. This would give an access/exit to the A45 from Cavalry Fields without going
If a spur road was connected off the roundabout, it would be possible to construct a feeder road through WB9/2 to connect to the west end of Fusilier Way.

9

Ref. No.

This would give an access/egress to the A45 from Cavalry Fields without going through the industrial 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. of Fusilier Way may be possible. through the industrial estate or Ordnance

Road.”

10 11
Alison Taylor
All All
Support Support

An excellent document – a lot of hard work involved.

Noted.

Noted.
No change.

No change.

Mr

Graham
Excellent!
Russell

12

Mr Brian 56

Taylor
Map 7 Pinch points

Comment

I believe that the pinch point should include the

section of West Street from the crossroads to the junction with Manor Road
Noted and partially accepted.
No change.
However this proposal

would extend the “pinch point” to include a large

section of West Street. No change required.

Noted.

13

14
Mr Dale Langley

All

Support

Support
Particularly supportive of efforts to open up 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 Given the ageing population in the village increasing the facility of retirement houses etc is to be encouraged.
No change.

No change.

Dorothy

Nicholso n

WB 10

Noted.

10

Ref. No.

15

Dorothy

Nicholso n

WB 14

Support

As my house is in the flood area potentially any

improvement would be excellent
Noted. Noted.
No change.
16 17 18 19
Mr M Fuller
All All All All
Support / Comment

Excellent plan for the village & residents

No change.

No change. No change. No change.
Sally Jameson
Support Support Support
Support the development Plan. No large building sites Noted. wanted

Andrew Medcraft

All

Noted.

Joe Freeston e
I have studied the proposed plan both online and at the chapel room. Obviously a great deal of local 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.
Noted.
At last it seems that local people have been given an opportunity to influence the local issues which affect our lives so profoundly.
20

21
Val Young
WB/9 All
Support Support
Noted. Noted.
No change.

No change.

Mrs

Freda English

22

Mrs A E

Wilshire

All

Support

Noted.

No change.

11

Ref. No.

23 24 25
Caroline Vass
All All All
Support Support Support
I wholly support the plans for future development Great Plans
Noted. Noted. Noted.
No change. No change. No change.
June Wood

Jen

I agree with the proposed plans

Pollingto n

26

Mrs K

Charlett

91 4. WB10

Support

Comment

Riverside Court does not have a ‘Warden on site’ on a permanent basis. ‘Warden on site’ gives the

Accepted.

Amend Plan.

5.

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!! I consider this to be a first class plan, it is a result of a considerable amount of time and hard work from the group. They are to be commended. I whole heartedly agree with all aspects of it. I wish to object in the strongest terms regarding the housing proposed in the draft, ie WB9/2 & WB9/3. 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.
27 28
James Mantz

All

Support

Object

Noted.

No change.

Ken Snowdin
WB9/2 WB9/3
Noted - as Reference 4 above.
As above – no further change.
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.