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.