Everton Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation

Everton Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Responses Stage 2 Regulation 14 Consultation - 1st November to 15th December 2017 Table 3 – Residents and Local Stakeholders Responses

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

1.1 H2 Objection. Further to the Neighbourhood Noted. See detailed response below. Consultation currently taking Resident 1 Site 2 place with regard to proposed Site 3 development at Bramble Farm (Everton Sluice Lane) and the land opposite this pig farm on Sluice Lane I would like to object to intense development - reasons given below.

1.2 H2 Objection. 1 Sluice Lane is virtually a Accepted. No further change. country lane at the end of High Site 2 Sites 2 and 3 have been Street - any increase in traffic deleted from the NDP Site 3 from that direction would be following objections very dangerous as High Street from BDC. cannot be widened and is already difficult to negotiate due to the need for on street

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

parking e..g. carers etc for the old people's bungalows, and also the blind corners at the t junctions - the end of Roe Lane and the village Hall corner (that has limited visibility). At the Bawtry Road end of the High Street the new Green development of housing recently occupied causes cars to be turning in immediately off that busy road - an accident waiting to happen. Further traffic would create major problems.

1.3 H2 Objection. 2 Everton is a country village Accepted. No further change. in the middle of green belt land Site 2 Sites 2 and 3 have been - people relocate here despite deleted from the NDP Site 3 the lack of shops etc for the following objections peace and quiet - new major from BDC. housing developments would change this and with no local shops cars would have to be

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

used - many would be 2 car residents (in order to afford the mortgage) both partners working - and there is also the question of school places for the village school which is already oversubscribed.

1.4 H2 Objection. Profit making at the expense of Accepted. No further change. the local community's way of Site 2 Sites 2 and 3 have been life and security is not a good deleted from the NDP Site 3 idea. While there is a need for following objections housing this planning is far too from BDC. much.

2.1 H2 Objection. Hi Accepted. No further change.

Resident 2 Site 2 I would like to object to the Sites 2 and 3 have been following sites being included deleted from the NDP Site 3 in the Neighbourhood Plan:- following objections Site 2 - the pig farm (Bramble from BDC. Farm) on Everton Sluice Lane (37 to 57 dwellings)

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Site 3 - the large field on the opposite side of the road to the pig farm (40 to 59 dwellings)

2.2 H2 Objection. I would like to object on the Accepted. No further change. following basis:- Site 2 Sites 2 and 3 have been These developments deleted from the NDP Site 3 fundamentally alter the following objections landscape of the village. They from BDC. affect the rural nature of Everton Sluice lane, extend the village outline and any development on these sites would affect views across the countryside from both Everton and Harwell

From a Highways perspective, the current infrastructure cannot support this increase in traffic. Whilst Everton Sluice Lane would have to be widened as part of

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

the development, High Street cannot be widened and is already congested

Both of these sites are on green belt and are outside the village envelope

Is this email sufficient for you to register the objection – or should I complete the form in HEDS?

Kind regards

3.1 H2 Objection. Morning Accepted. No further change.

Resident 3 Site 2 I would like to object to the Sites 2 and 3 have been following sites being included deleted from the NDP Site 3 in the Neighbourhood Plan:- following objections from BDC. Site 2 - the pig farm (Bramble Farm) on Everton Sluice Lane (37 to 57 dwellings)

Site 3 - the large field on the opposite side of the road to

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

the pig farm (40 to 59 dwellings)

3.2 H2 I would like to object on the Accepted. No further change. following basis:- Sites 2 and Sites 2 and 3 have been 3 These developments deleted from the NDP fundamentally alter the following objections landscape of the village. They from BDC. affect the rural nature of Everton Sluice lane, extend the village outline and any development on these sites would affect views across the countryside from both Everton and Harwell

From a Highways perspective, the current infrastructure cannot support this increase in traffic. Whilst Everton Sluice Lane would have to be widened as part of the development, High Street

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

cannot be widened and is already congested

Both of these sites are on green belt and are outside the village envelope

Is this email sufficient for you to register the objection – or should I complete the form in HEDS?

Please could you confirm receipt that you have received this email.

Many thanks

4.1 H2 Support Everton Parish Draft Noted. No change. Neighbourhood Development Resident 4 Plan V2—Winter 2017

Here are our comments on and contributions towards the updated ‘Everton Parish Draft

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Neighbourhood Development Plan V2—Winter 2017’:

Firstly we are very pleased to see that the proposed sites NP02 and NP03 (shown on Map 12) have been deleted from the plan, as confirmed in sections 6.30 and 6.31 of the Version 2 edition. These should never have been included, as we had pointed out in our previous submission. We also drew attention to the fact that one of these sites, NP03, had already been refused planning permission and then refused again on appeal, which was itself a reason not to include it—and that sites such as these ought not to be encouraged as they would create difficulties in refusing permission on adjacent or nearby plots

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

thereby creating cascading domino development effects.

4.2 All Comment Avoiding precedents: Noted. No change.

There is a principle here that we contend should be applied throughout Everton Parish as part of the Plan, which is that avoiding the creation of planning precedents that may have a foreseeable impact on its overall character and environment in the longer term, should always be a consideration—and that there should be a presumption against this written into the Plan.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

4.3 H1, H2 Comment Housing density: Not accepted. No change.

Next concerning the proposed The proposed indicative housing density for new housing densities for developments: proposed new housing sites have been provided The housing density in the by Bassetlaw District Character Zones identified on Council and generally Map 11 and then detailed in reflect the character of Appendix VIII is mostly quite surrounding areas in line low, the majority being below with other policies in the 30dph and much of that is NDP. Housing densities actually below 20dph. In fact in and around the the average is close to 16dph. conservation area are Therefore the calculation of generally higher than site capacities referenced in those on the outskirts of section 6.35 is out of step with the vilage. the overall character of The capacity of each site Everton Parish and whilst 6.36 allocation is an indicative indicates that these are only figure and proposals will indicative figures they are all be assessed on their clearly set too high. own merits through the Best practice is to reflect the development character of the existing management process.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

surroundings, so the figures in 6.35 and the listing of sites identified for potential development in the Plan should be reduced.

4.4 E7 Comment Layout as well as architectural Accepted. Amend Plan. empathy: Insert additional criterion to Policy E7: It would also make sense to "In larger schemes where groups of several propose as policy guidance—a houses are proposed, the creation of focal statement of what would most points and through routes should be reflect and enhance the provided to enhance permeability and existing village—that there create a sense of place". should be focal points and spaces in developments of four houses or more and connecting routes through them where practical, to create a sense of place and naturally extend the village environment, rather than just drop meaningless estates into place.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Perhaps something could be borrowed from the ‘Garden Village’ concept to provide a clearer vision in the Everton Parish Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan of what Everton should be like in the future, rather than just concentrating on where it might be acceptable to throw in more houses.

For example see the Barratt Developments think piece ‘Places for All Ages: Delivering the Future Garden Village’:

http://www.barrattdevelopme nts.co.uk/~/media/Files/B/Barr att-Developments/materials- and-downloads/Delivering-the- Future-Garden-Village.pdf

And see also:

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

https://www.tcpa.org.uk/gard en-city-principles

http://www.rsk.co.uk/item/77 2-locally-led-garden-villages- towns-and-cities-further- support-for-a-design-led- response-to-the-need-for-new- homes.html

https://www.gov.uk/governme nt/publications/locally-led- garden-villages-towns-and- cities

4.5 All Comment Other statements of principle: Not accepted. No change.

It would seem also that local The NDP has to plan sentiment, including ourselves, positively for new would support a more development and forthright statement in the support strategic policies Plan to the effect that there in Bassetlaw's local plans will be no development if there is not a need for it in the

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

context of wider Bassetlaw which propose a degree policies; and that parking for of growth for Everton. the village should be seen as a BDC has submitted separate issue, not just comments suggesting housing development related, that references to since that is what will make parking provision should Everton a vibrant community be removed from the able to support small NDP. businesses, artisan enterprises and sustainable services by extending its reach to include and facilitate a surrounding catchment area.

4.6 H2 Comment Proposed sites: Noted. No change.

It is noted that a considerable amount of additional housing has already been added to the village in recent times and that the existing commitment to new building is already quite high (Appendix III and Appendix IV).

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

4.7 H2 Support Of the proposed sites shown Noted. No change. on Map 2, there is no objection Sites 1, 2, Sites 2 and 3 have been in principle to sites 1, 2, 3, 4 3, 4 and 5 deleted following and 5 subject to the comments objections from BDC. on housing density, layout and architectural empathy above Site 5 has been deleted - and already in the Plan being see Response 25.0 taken into consideration. below.

4.8 H2 Support / There is no strong objection to Noted. No change. Comment sites 6 and 7, except that they Sites 6 and The site allocation would feed their additional 7 policies set out that traffic directly into the main schemes will be required road, whereas the others to provide safe access to would filter it through the the sites and required existing street network visibility splays. towards established junctions—and also that these are sites that potentially create planning precedents that could lead to excessive expansion in

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

the south east quadrant of the village.

4.9 5.26 Comment Historical development of Noted. Amend Plan. Everton: Amend 5.26 Second to final sentence: Finally, regarding the Historical "This is also believed to be the route the Development of Everton, Pilgrim fathers took and those from section 5.62 of the Plan Gainsborough and Lincolnshire, are probably quotes something thought to have congregated at that was in the submission that Gainsborough Old Hall." we previously made pointing out that ‘the Roman route today follows the road between Drakeholes and Everton, recently given the name “Gainsborough Old Road”’.

Confirmation of this is in the ‘History, gazetteer, and directory of Nottinghamshire, and the town and county of the town of Nottingham’, by

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

William White, published in 1832.

It says:

‘..many coins of [the Emperor] Constantine, and human bones, were found [when digging the canal tunnel]. There is no doubt that this [Drakeholes] has been a Roman station, for a Roman road, of which some feint traces may still be seen, has passed through it…’

The position of the road is also confirmed by the following, all of which predate the straightening of the A631 on its approach into Everton and clearly identify what is now “Gainsborough Old Road” as the original road:

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

• The 1840 0rdnance Survey map, sheet 82

• The 1856 0rdnance Survey map sheet 83

• The 1945 0rdnance Survey map sheet 103

Page 337 has an account of Drakeholes, also known as Drakelow. It is described as being a ‘depot’ for the Chesterfield Canal and as ‘on the Gainsborough Road’ and it is correctly noted that it is partly in Everton and partly in Wiseton. It is reasonable to infer from what is said that it was then an interchange between the road network and waterways. Page 338 mentions the coaches stopping at The Swan Inn at Drakeholes—The Royal Mail, The Express and The Hope connecting it to

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Sheffield, Lincoln, Louth, Gainsborough and Doncaster— and Drakeholes is also referred to on pages 340 and 341. The Hope coach connected to the Hull packet boats and therefore the coastal trade via either Gainsborough or the Chestefield Canal (see pages 355 and 407).

John Marius Wilson in the ‘Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales’ (1870-72) also notes that ‘Roman coins and other Roman relics have been found here’—and among the British Archaeological Sites listed in the ARCHI database at www.archiuk.com 8 are centred in or around Drakeholes and include Roman, Iron Age and Saxon

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

finds and evidence of ancient structures.

We have also been told that prior to the straightening of the road a huge well with stone cut steps inside it ‘big enough to drop a tractor down’ existed in the field behind our property and that although the brickwork around the top was perhaps only one or two hundred years’ old, the rest of the construction suggested something more ancient, possibly Roman.

So, although always a modest hamlet with very few houses, Drakeholes has been quite important historically and an important location throughout several eras of history.

Whilst it is acknowledged that Map 8 of the Plan shows that

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

the part of Drakeholes that is within Everton parish is ‘An Area of Archaeological Interest’, given the significant nature of its history and of course the contribution that Jonathan Aclom of Wiseton Hall made to the character of the surrounding landscape, perhaps more should be said about this and the importance of the locality in relation to Draft Policies E1, E4, E5 and E6.

In relation to section 5.27 incidentally, which mentions the dragons on the tympanum of Holy Trinity Church in Everton, both the place name ‘Drakeholes’ and its alternative name of ‘Drakelow’ are likely to mean Dragon’s Hill or Dragon’s Mound, although Dragon’s Hall (Drac Halla) is also a possibility. The place

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

name suggests a low rounded hill, which may reference what it was like before the canal tunnel was cut, however, it is quite possibly a reference to a ‘Barrow’ or burial mound.

And concerning the comment on the Pilgrim Fathers in section 5.62, which may also have come from our previous submission as well, this needs a minor correction: Those from Gainsborough and Lincolnshire are thought to have congregated at Gainsborough Old Hall. The Pigrim Fathers from Scrooby and Austerfield, including William Bradford and William and Mary Brewster (and their children Love and Wrestling), must have passed through Drakeholes if they travelled by road to Gainsborough, on their way to

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Holland where the Speedwell then took them to meet the Mayflower in Southampton.

4.10 Comment Conservation areas and Noted. No change. extremities of the Everton The maps are copied as Plan: extracts from Bassetlaw In this context it is noted that District Council's the Conservation area Maps 9 Conservation Area and and 10 (oddly marked as Map Management Plan 18) do not include the fact that (referred to para 5.36). a conservation area exists in The maps clearly Drakeholes and although it is indicate the extent of shown on Map 11 covering the Everton Everton’s Character Areas, no Conservation Area. The mention of this status seems to Wiseton / Drakeholes appear elsewhere, neither is and Clayworth the fact that all of Drakeholes Conservation Areas are is presently within it. not within Everton Since Everton Parish is Parish. Part of including Drakeholes in its Drakeholes is in Everton Draft Neighbourhood Parish but this area is

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Development Plan there not in the Conservation should be a greater recognition Area. of its uniqueness and the nature of the relationship between the two places, including that some different circumstances may apply to it than those being expressed for within the development boundary of Everton village.

5.1 H2 Object / To whom it concerns Partially accepted. No change. Comment Resident 5 I would like my feelings known Several of the proposed towards these unsuitable development sites have development sites. The reason been deleted from the being the close proximity to NDP following objections the lovely countryside that from BDC. surrounds our village. The The NDP is required to environment and the wildlife support sustainable are what keeps existing development and plan residents here and also attracts positively and support new people into this lovely suitable new housing small village. over the plan period in

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

The only interest developers line with national and and landowners have is in their Bassetlaw planning profits. They do not care about policies. the impact the developments Policies in the NDP aim will have on the environment to protect the special and the effect it will have on built character and our village with increased natural environment of population, traffic, and the Parish, and ensure pollution. that new housing There are enough infill sites in development is Everton for new houses sympathetic to the local without extending any further area. into the green-belt.

The sites and the number of properties forecast for this village is in my opinion disgusting. We are talking 72 properties in total.

In Everton, at the moment we have approximately 16 properties for sale ranging from £300,000 up to £450,000

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

and have been on the market for up to 12 months.

These new sites and properties are not wanted or needed.

6.0 56 6.34 NP04 and Object I do not support the proposed Accepted. No further change. 57 NP12 Making a sites NP04 and NP12. Resident 6 6.35 Sites 2 and 3 have been 54 comment H2 Sites 2 Both sites are removed from deleted following and 3 the village which as a result objections from would lead to too many Bassetlaw District vehicles (fuel tankers, delivery Council. lorries, cars etc) traveling through and adding to the many farm vehicles which service the outlying farmland.

This will increase already due to site NP8 being approved.

7.0 54 6.34 NP12 Object Accepted. No further change.

Resident 7 H2 Site 3 Site 3 has been deleted following objections

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

from Bassetlaw District Council.

8.1 54 – 6.36, Object The initial consultation Partially accepted. No further change. 62 6.37 resulted in the following 2 red Resident 8 Several of the proposed lines from residents; development sites have

Maximum 0f 20 houses for the been deleted from the period of the plan, NDP following objections from BDC and Maximum of 10 houses in any landowners. development. The NDP is required to Recently 15 properties have support sustainable been completed in Everton. development and plan During their construction there positively and support was disruptive congestion with suitable new housing traffic dangerously backing up over the plan period in onto the A631 from both the line with national and High St and Mattersey Rd. An Bassetlaw planning accident at temporary traffic policies. lights closed the A631. (HIGHWAY SAFETY) Policies in the NDP aim to protect the special

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Consent has already been built character and given to a further 50+ natural environment of properties. the Parish, and ensure that new housing The village plan now contains development is scope for the construction of a sympathetic to the local further 182 properties. area. Everton has no real infrastructure and its roads are poor. The High St is 4.8 metres wide in places, the minimum “suitable” for 2 way traffic and other roads are well below 4.0 meters. The 400 metre stretch of High St from the A631 to Northfield Farmstead has 9 vehicular access roads joining the street and 8 driveways where joining the street is particularly hazardous.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

8.2 H1 (HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC Partially accepted. No further change. GENERATION,ADEQUACY OF H2 The Parish Council is PARKING/LOADING/TURNING) aware of local The A631 is a particularly busy infrastructure issues narrow Trunk Road, however 3 including traffic concerns developments of 50+ and Section 9.0 of the properties are proposed with NDP sets out how these narrow and difficult access concerns will be onto the A631.(HIGHWAY addressed by working SAFETY) with other parties such as BDC. Here we have the potential for 247 properties being imposed against the wishes of Everton residents with no regard for Disturbance, Density of Building,Traffic Generation, Highway Safety, Road Access and Adequacy of parking/Loading/Turning.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

9.0 H1 Making a In principle I have no Noted. No change. comment objections to some extra Resident 9 H2 Policies in the NDP aim housing which should include to protect the special E6 some small affordable ones, built character and but it is important to retain the natural environment of E7 attractive character and the Parish, and ensure landscape value of our rural that new housing village. Space and green areas development is are already diminishing (due to sympathetic to the local many houses already built), area. extending northwards and eastwards will not enhance.

Already has been an increase in volume of traffic village roads are not suitable. School buses and public buses have problems getting through now at times Being rural, tractors also). Emergency vehicles are called to attend, thankfully not often, but we do have elderly to be considered.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Landscape value - changing character of a small rural village. Volume of traffic which could affect emergency vehicles as an example.

10.1 56 Sites 2, 3 Object Sites 2, 3 and 4 Partially accepted. No further change. 57 and 4 Resident 10 58 This amount of extra houses Sites 2 and 3 have been 60 will inevitably result in a deleted from the NDP 61 considerable increase in traffic following objections on Everton Sluice Lane and from BDC. High Street which are already However Site 4 has very busy roads with local planning consent already traffic and heavy farm vehicles. and therefore it is The proposed sites are beyond appropriate to retain the the present limit of houses on site as a commitment in Everton Sluice Lane and this the NDP. encroachment onto farmland seems unnecessary.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

10.2 Sites 6 and Object Sites 6 and 7 Not accepted. No change. 7 Vehicles from houses on these The site allocation proposed sites would require policies set out that access or egress on / from the schemes will be required A636 where that much road is to provide safe access to just 2 lanes wide and is heavily the sites and required used by lorries, buses farm visibility splays. vehicles and considerable general traffic.

I object to these 5 proposed development sites.

11.1 H1 Object A defined building envelope Not accepted. No change. should be indicated for the Resident 11 Bassetlaw District village of Everton and the Council do not support village of Harworth. the identification of This is not currently shown in settlement boundaries in the consultation document. villages.

11.2 56 Site 2 Object The plot extends the village Accepted. No further change. envelope too much.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

This development plot would Site 2 has been deleted change the character of from the NDP following Everton Sluice Lane and objections from BDC. change the agricultural character and views.

From the higher and lower parts of the parish this development would stick out like a sore thumb.

11.3 57 Site 3 Object The plot extends the building Site 3 has been deleted No further change. too much. from the NDP following

objections from BDC. The plot would change the character of Sluice Lane and change the agricultural aspect and views.

From the higher and lower parts of the parish the development would stick out like a sore thumb, a blot on the landscape.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

11.4 61 Site 7 Object The plot size for multiple Noted. No change. dwellings is too large. The capacity figure The plot would be out of provided is indicative context with the adjacent plots only and any planning and character of the adjacent proposal coming forward plots. would be considered against other policies in the NDP which require consideration of local context and character.

12.1 H1 There should be a defined Not accepted. No change. building boundary to the Resident 12 Bassetlaw District village of Everton and Council do not support Harworth. the identification of settlement boundaries in villages.

12.2 61 Site 7 Object The proposed site too large for Not accepted. No change. the adjacent plots and The capacity figure character of the vicinity. provided is indicative

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

only and any planning proposal coming forward would be considered against other policies in the NDP which require consideration of local context and character.

57 Site 3 Object Development would extend Site 3 has been deleted No further change. housing envelope too far. from the NDP following 12.3 objections from BDC. This would change the nature

of the landscape and views.

12.4 56 Site 2 Object Development would extend Site 2 has been deleted No further change. housing envelope too far. from the NDP following

objections from BDC. Changing the nature of the landscape and agricultural aspect / view.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

13.1 H2 Completed table from consultation event 11/11/17. Resident 13 (Yes = site suitable for allocation)

13.2 Site 1 Yes Site of previous building Noted. No change demolished long ago.

13.3 Site 2 No The majority of site is farmland Site 2 has been deleted No further change. and away from built form of from the NDP following village. objections from BDC.

Everton Sluice Land and High Street will not support extra traffic generated.

13.4 Site 3 No As above Site 3 has been deleted No further change. from the NDP following objections from BDC.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

13.5 Site 5 Yes If access can be resolved - Noted. No further change. ransom strip to west of this The landowner of the site. ransom strip (see Resident 25 comments below) has objected. The site should be deleted from the NDP as it is not deliverable.

13.6 Site 6 No Access to A631 difficult and Not accepted. No change. dangerous. Also walking access The site allocation to village not possible. policies set out that schemes will be required to provide safe access to the sites and required visibility splays.

13.7 Site 7 No Access to A631 fraught with Not accepted. No change. danger and no possibility of The site allocation safe pedestrian access to policies set out that village. schemes will be required to provide safe access to

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

the sites and required visibility splays.

14.1 54 - All sites Support I support all sites put forward Noted. No further change. 61 in the plan ie 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Resident 14 Some sites have been deleted from the NDP following objections from BDC and a landowner.

14.2 Comment I think the plan should show a Not accepted. No change. commitment that where The former text was practical new builds should deleted on the advice of have provision for FTTP (Fibre BDC. to the Premises).

15.1 Sites 1, 5, Support Noted. No further change. 6, 7 Resident 15 Site 1 has been deleted following an objection from BDC.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Site 5 has been deleted following an objection from a landowner with control over a ransom strip.

15.2 Sites 2, 3, Object Partially accepted. 4 Sites 2 and 3 have been deleted from the NDP following objections from BDC.

15.3 Site 1 Comment Site Ref 1 Pinfold Lane Noted. No change

At the recent consultation Retain site in NDP. event in the village hall 11 Nov regarding site ref 1 Pinfold Lane Harwell I would like to correct BDC on a seemingly wrong assumption in that BDC has no record of any previous dwelling on this site. Having been born (1941) and brought up in Everton I remember as a

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

child in the '40s and '50s I remember a small cottage there; 2 up 2 down no mains power or water, occupied by an old disabled man. He obtained water from a well on the opposite side of the lane which assumedly is now filled in but is still marked be a stone slab. I believe in the late '50s the cottage was condemned, became derelict and was demolished in stages over the years.

I understand that planning applications have been rejected by reason of BDC's wrong assumption. There are several people still living in Harwell and Everton who can verify the above history, one of whom is local historian Alan Berry, resident of Pinfold Lane, who is happy to be associated

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

with these comments. There are relevant photographs in the village archives.

Could BDC planning department please amend their records.

Completed table from consultation event 11/11/17.

(Yes = site suitable for

allocation)

15.4 Site 1 Yes As a dwelling was on this site Noted No change for many years (extra comments enclosed)

15.5 Site 2 No Danger of excess traffic on Accepted. No further change. High Street passing playground Site 2 has been deleted and bungalows for the elderly. following objections from BDC.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

15.6 Site 3 No Ditto Accepted. No further change.

Site 3 has been deleted following objections from BDC.

15.7 Site 4 No Ditto Not accepted. No change.

Site 4 has planning permission already. It is shown as a commitment.

15.8 Site 5 Yes Noted. No further change.

Site 5 has been deleted following an objection from a landowner with control over a ransom strip.

15.9 Site 6 Yes Noted. No change.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

15.10 Site 7 Yes Noted. No change.

16.1 H2 Object I vehemently oppose the Partially accepted. No further change. decision to build extra Resident 16 Sites 2,3,4 Several of the proposed Making a properties in the suggested development sites have comment locations. Firstly at the peak been deleted from the dph of 30, at sites 2 and 3, and NDP following objections 20 dph at site 4. from BDC and landowners.

Site 4 has planning permission already and should be retained in the NDP as a commitment the principle of residential development on the site has been accepted.

The NDP is required to support sustainable development and plan

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

positively and support suitable new housing over the plan period in line with national and Bassetlaw planning policies.

Policies in the NDP aim to protect the special built character and natural environment of the Parish, and ensure that new housing development is sympathetic to the local area.

16.2 H2 Object Whilst working on an average The Parish Council is of 2 motor vehicles per aware of local household, this would infrastructure issues introduce the potential for an including traffic concerns extra 256 vehicles to and from and Section 9.0 of the this area. The infrastructure of NDP sets out how these this part of the village is just concerns will be not made to service these addressed by working

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

requirements, let alone the with other parties such danger it imposes on others in as BDC. this part of Everton. Even at the lower proposals of 20 dph, this could introduce a further 174 vehicles! I just dont think that this has been thought through with this foresight in mind. This is at the end of the day, a deadend road.

16.3 H2 Object I also oppose the Noted. No further change. developments (of Sites 2,3 and Sites 2, 3, 4) on the grounds of their 4 environmental impact to our surrounding countryside. This particular area is very popular with dog walkers, joggers and many others that like to be able to escape the day to day stresses, without travelling too far, partly one of the reasons why one moved to the village in the first place. I feel very

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

strongly that a development of this size would have catastrophic impacts upon the character of our beautiful village.

16.4 H2 Comment / I don't feel as though the type Noted. No further change. Objection of properties for these areas Affordable housing is a don't necessarily service the requirement on some best interests of the demands schemes in line with on local housing needs and national and local affordable housing. One that planning policy particularly springs to mind are requirements and is the new developments at the managed through the far end of Everton, on the development Mattersey Road. I feel far management process by better use could be made of BDC. the space to introduce affordable housing. Properties with starting prices of £425,000 are far out of the reach of many.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

17.0 56, Sites Object These sites are unsuitable due Partially accepted. No further change. 57, Making a to their proximity to the Resident 17 2, 3, 4 Sites 2 and 3 have been 58 comment beautiful countryside that deleted from the NDP NP04 surrounds the village. The following objections Landscape and environment is from BDC. Site 4 should NP08 why residents live and want to be retained as a stay in the village. NP12 commitment as it If built on these sites are not already has planning protecting our local consent. environment and wildlife!

There are enough infill sites without extending the boundaries.

These sites and the amount of houses projected for them do not respond to Local Housing needs (objective 2 ENP).

there is currently outline planning permission for 72 in all. There are 16 houses for sale which have been for sale 6-12 months prices £3-450,000

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

We are building more than other areas in Bassetlaw.

These sites are not needed.

18.0 56 - NP12 Object We wish to make Partially accepted. No further change. 59 representation in relation to Resident 18 NP04a Sites 2 and 3 have been develop the sites marked NP12 deleted from the NDP Sites 2 and and NP04a on the following objections 3 Neighbourhood Plan. We from BDC. consider these sites to be totally unsuitable for housing development. Whilst they may be considered ribbon development they would encroach on predominantly agricultural environment which has the identifiable landscape character particular to the Carrs. Cross Lane seems to provide a natural boundary for the village and extending the built area beyond this would appear to be contrary to Bassetlaw District Council's

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

Policy to 'conserve and reinforce' the Idle Lowlands.

Another major concern of the proposed development relates to the increase in traffic along Sluice Lane and feeding into the village at High Street. This stretch of road passes the village hall, which is well used by the community and already suffers from lack of parking, resulting in congestion at the junction with Church Street. Further to this, the road is well used by pedestrians, particularly parents and children going to school, or to the playground and sports field. Bungalows housing the elderly are also located on High Street. In our opinion, the additional traffic would cause significant danger and have a negative impact on the village

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

community. The junction of High Street and the A631 is already difficult to negotiate and a growth of traffic entering and leaving the village at this point would exacerbate the problem.

19.0 Completed table from consultation event 11/11/17. Resident 19 (Yes = site suitable for allocation)

19.1 Site 1 Yes Good use of spare land Noted. No further change.

This site has been deleted following objections from BDC.

19.2 Site 2 No Too large site. Number of cars Sites 2 and 3 have been No further change. would make travel difficult and deleted from the NDP unsafe on single track road. following objections from BDC.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

19.3 Site 3 No As above. Road is not suitable. Sites 2 and 3 have been No further change. Massive increase in traffic deleted from the NDP passing and old peoples' following objections bungalows, play area. Exit on a from BDC. small junction.

19.4 Site 4 No As above. Increased cars may Not accepted. No change. use single track road. Park This site already has Blacksmiths Arms and school - planning consent and not safe. should be retained in the NDP as a commitment.

19.5 Site 5 Yes Possible if road infrastructure Site 5 has been deleted No further change. can manage. following an objection from a landowner with control over a ransom strip.

19.6 Site 6 Yes Access to main road good new Noted. No change. junction required? Cars not The planning policy travelling through Everton requires safe access and village. visibility splays.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

19.7 Site 7 Yes As above. Not affecting Noted. No change. infrastructure of village. Away The planning policy from the small access road into requires safe access and village. visibility splays.

20.0 51 6.23 H3 Support Noted. No change.

Resident 20

21.0 51 6.23 H3 Support Noted. No change.

Resident 21

22.0 56 6.37 H2 Object The sites do not relate well to Sites 2 and 3 have been No further change. 57 Comment immediate local context and deleted from the NDP Resident 22 Site 2 neighbouring buildings. The following objections Site 3 nearest buildings are farm from BDC. Site 4 has buildings and the local contact planning permission and is farmland. Both sites would is shown as a encroach on open land and commitment. would serve to extend the

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

village and open up further potential for development.

The sites do not adjoin the existing built form of Everton village

It would be difficult to envisage the sites having suitable access linked to existing networks. Sluice Lane serves as an access to outlying farms and for agricultural vehicles to access farmland. It is a single track and all ready carries a good deal of traffic. ther volume and pace of traffic on Sluice Lane and High Street is currently a matter of concern without increasing traffic further

The sites would not be modest in scale because each could accommodate in excess of the

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

10 dwellings maximum proposed in Draft policy H1

Both of the sites would be in my view incompatible with the most fundamental aspects of draft policy H1 and should not be supported

To offer support would in my view be tantamount to destroying the underlying principles of the Policy and would be contrary to the wishes of Parishioners as expressed in the consultations which have taken place

23.0 56 Site2 and Object Both Site 2 and Site 3 are in my Accepted. No further change. 57 opinion not suitable for Resident 23 Site 3 Sites 2 and 3 have been housing. They are outside the deleted from the NDP current development envelope following objections and in green belt. Extending from BDC. the village further into the

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

green belt alters the character Site 4 has planning of the landscape permission and is shown as a commitment. The only access to these houses would be via High Street onto Everton Sluice Lane. This road is all ready congested and difficult to drive down and turning onto the Gainsborough Road is often difficult. Even small developments of 10 houses on each site will mean another 25 cars

There have been many instances of vehicles travelling too fast along Sluice Lane when going to the farms and stables so more cars will not help. Even if a pavement is put in, the large farm vehicles that use this lane will cause further obstacles and potential safety

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

issues is there are more houses and cars.

24.0 H2 Object If we assume each new house Accepted. Comment will bring two new vehicles to Resident 24 Sites 2 and Sites 2 and 3 have been the village we must be aware 3 deleted from the NDP that sites 2 and 3 will cause a following objections dangerous bottleneck at the from BDC. end of High Street leading to the A631

This will effect both egress and access to the village

The school bus, tractors and emergency services will be severely hampered by queuing vehicles

We thus need to restrict the number of dwellings on site 2 and 23 or alternatively abandon one of them

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

This restriction should be in line with policy for site 3 and general policy of no more than 10 dwellings per linear site

25.0 59 H2 Object Please see attached land Accepted. Amend Plan. 60 Comment registry plan for Hawthorne Resident 25 Site 5 The site should be Delete Site 5. House. We would not consider deleted from the NDP if granting access through our it is not available for land (as hatched) to a housing development. scheme that may be proposed to the east of Croft Way (denoted as Site 5 in the Plan)

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

26.0 All Support The draft plan is a realistic and Noted. No change. pragmatic proposal to help Resident 26 create a sustainable housing provision for the need of the community. Everton is a small settlement with a strong identity and architectural merit. This needs to be protected and future developments need to reflect local need. There need to be restrictions on the creation of large single house plots with no sympathetic design to compliment the features and scale in the village. The character of the conservation area and adjacent areas has to be protected and this includes the green corridors. I support the prioritisation of the sites which have been nominated through the local plan process

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

27.1 56 H2 Object 1. This development proposal Accepted. No further change. Comment is outside the village envelope Resident 27 Site 2 Site 2 has been deleted on green belt land and would from the NDP following take this land away from objections from BDC. agriculture.

2. The current infrastructure (in relation to traffic) cannot support such a development. Although Everton Sluice Lane could potentially be widened to accommodate the increased traffic the High Street cannot.

3. Such a development would fundamentally change the landscape and rural nature of Everton Sluice Lane affecting the rural views from both Everton and Harwell.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

4. The outcome of the questionnaire sent to all parishioners indicated (page 44 para 64) that the majority (63.4% of respondents) wished to see between 20 and 39 houses built over the next 16 years. Site 2 alone could exceed this figure with potentially 37 - 57 dwellings.

27.3 57 H2 Object 1. This development proposal Accepted. No further change. Comment is outside the village envelope Site 3 Site 3 has been deleted on green belt land and would from the NDP following take this land away from objections from BDC. agriculture.

Consultee Page Para. Vision/ Support / Comments received Parish Council Amendments to NP Name No. No. Objective Object / Consideration Address / Policy Comment No. Ref. No.

3. Such a development would fundamentally change the landscape and rural nature of Everton Sluice Lane affecting the rural views from both Everton and Harwell.

4. The outcome of the questionnaire sent to all parishioners indicated (page 44 para 64) that the majority (63.4% of respondents) wished to see between 20 and 39 houses built over the next 16 years. Site 3 alone could exceed this figure with potentially 40 - 59 dwellings.