and

CHALTON

OPEN MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL 26 June 2013

to discuss the

Planning Application to build 18 dwellings next to The Guinea

Of the 40 people attended the last meeting only 12 wrote to the Council Bedforshire Council (CBC). If you want your views known you must make a submission. Submissions are categorised as either Comments or Objections. They are all read but only Objections are considered formally. So it is important to make it clear whether you are making an Objection or not.

Your submission could start: I strongly object to the planning application, CB/13/01869/FULL for the following reasons:

Then list your reasons. If you don’t make this statement your letter will be categorised as comment only and won’t count towards the number of objections.

CBC have relaxed the deadline for submissions and the Parish Clerk stressed at the meeting that they would be accepted by Central Beds if the are received in ‘early July’.So, there are a few days left

You can register your comments online at:

 http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/PLANTECH/DCWebPages/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=582689

Or send your written submission to:

Ms Amy Lack

Case Officer, Planning

Central Bedfordshire Council

Priory House

Monks Walk

Chicksands

Shefford

Bedfordshire 

SG17 5TQ

Carolyn Lister has offered to take your submission for you to CBC on Monday 1 Jul 13 if you want. You can contact her at:

7 Blunham Road

Moggerhanger

01767 640727

calister@btinternet.com

ooOoo

Twentyfive people turned out including the Parish Council and there was a good deal of discussion.

• Everyone’s view was that any development is inappropriate unless certain infrastructure issues are resolved.
• the consensus, supported by the Parish Council, was the proposed development is not suitable in its current design/layout.
• The Parish Council has agreed to request this goes to Committee.

The main points were:

Main changes to the Application

• Loss of 1 two bed and 1 four bed property. Splitting of 2 pairs of 4 bed semi-detached properties so a net gain of 3 detached properties.
• Not seen as significantly different from before.
• Felt to be driven by money rather than consideration of what the village requires

Essential that improvements to water supply/drainage are put in place prior to any building

• Major issues with low water pressure, Park Road frequently have had no water.
• Foul drainage and surface water both drain into the 1 main sewer, resulting in overflow, some into residential downstairs shower trays, also the village hall car park. Considerable money spent last year to rearrange internal drainage systems  to prevent ‘blowback’ in the village hall toilets.
• The developer has submitted a report saying the site is suitable for soak-aways. This was refuted by all. During the last very heavy rainfall water poured off the land and onto Blunham Road. This continued  for 3 days after the rain had stopped. Concerns on the effect this would have on footings of No 3 (listed building) and No 7 Blunham Road. Also No 2 Blunham Road, garden floods during heavy rainfall, also a listed building

Traffic issues at Blunham Road to A603 Crossroads

• The type of housing suggested is likely to generate another 30 cars at this already dangerous junction.
• Informal survey carried out by a Parish Council member showed over 700 vehicle movements along the A603 in one hour, during the day.
• Suggest unbiased vehicle survey and installation of traffic lights to include pedestrian lights both sides of the crossing. Currently pedestrian lights on the Sandy side only.
• The new boundary fence to the right of the A603 entrance to Guinea car park will further reduce visibily to cars emerging from Blunham Road.

Site design inappropriate and not in keeping with the village

• Insufficient road width and turning space for emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, dust carts. Not to mention large farm vehicles such as combine harvesters.
• The number of cars will exceed spaces provided so will lead to on the road parking, making the above worse.
• Surrounding properties ‘overwhelmed’ by imposing large properties, suggest inclusion of at least 2 bungalows, one at the side of No 3 Blunham Road, and one at the rear of No 7 Blunham Road, to reduce impact.
• Plot 1 well forward of the building line will cause poor visibility for No 3 Blunham Road. Also a bottle neck at this point in the road. Concerns raised that trees might be cut down in Blunham Road to allow for road widening.
• Removal of trees in neighbouring properties marked for removal shows disregard for surrounding property owners.
• The four house facing the A603 have access from the pavement to their front doors. This will lead to dropping-off and collecting and encourage roadside paring in that area.

More appropriate site

There was lots of discussion here and most of it a bit woolly as nobody was sure of the details. This raised many questions that maybe Central Beds could comment on.

• This ’land’ is within the CBC plan but no one  fully understood what this plan is.  LDF, local plan, neighbourhood plan all mentioned but how do they differ.
• Why can’t Moggerhanger have a neighbourhood plan?
• It is believed Central Government has abolished the 30 houses per hectare requirement, how does this affect CBC thinking. Could the housing density on this plot be less than the stated minimum of 17 ( June 9, 2010. CLG Minister Greg Clarke reissued, with changes, PPS3)
• Back in 2008? when discussions took place on suitable sites in Moggerhanger it was suggested 11 dwellings were built. This was seen as a more appropriate number.
• Not really applicable to this application but comments were made about the ‘Old Rose’. Why build new when there are buildings falling down that could be restored.