Everton Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 1 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 2 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) 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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. 9 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. 10 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".