ORLINGBURY PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of the meeting held in the Village Hall on
Tuesday 6th May 09 to address to building planning applications
1.Present: Council: Cllrs Miles (Chairman), Rootham (Deputy), Allen, White, Rowlatt.
Public: Mr Lewis, Mr Simson ,Mr Smith, Mrs Smith, Mrs Widdup, Mr Derry, Dr Staff, Mrs Staff.
2. Apologies: Were received and accepted from P.C. Clerk Mrs Alison Mc Claven,, Cllrs Waller and Norton.
2. Apologies: Were received and accepted from P.C. Clerk Mrs Alison Mc Claven,, Cllrs Waller and Norton.
3.Planning 3.1
Application No: WP/2009/0116/F – Re-roofing of existing garage (flat to pitched).
Location: little Barn 2b Harrowden Road Orlingbury
Applicant: Mr Alan West
Location: little Barn 2b Harrowden Road Orlingbury
Applicant: Mr Alan West
3.1.1
Outcome:
After studying the re-roofing plan for the Little Barn 2b Harrowden Road Orlingbury, the Parish Clerk was requested to write to the development control officer requesting that construction traffic entering and leaving the site would ensure that there is no hazard to road users and pedestrians during building alterations.
3.2
Application No: WP/2009/0024/F- Construction of five new dwellings and a new access road to land off Isham Road Orlingbury.
Location: Stables and land adjacent 24 Isham Road, Orlingbury ,Wellingborough.
3.2.1
The Chairman, Mr Steve Miles opened discussion by summarising the project and outlining concerns relating to
· a proposed access point at the centre of the existing dangerous bend
· potential overload of existing services e.g sewage which had caused problems in the past
· location on a dangerous bend in a road commonly used by horse riders and pedestrians
· a problem of speeding cars underlined in the traffic survey conducted by the PC
· existing problems of parking in and around the Leys where narrow and busy roads currently, caused problems
· the development would be beyond the village boundary and existing building lines
3.2.2
Outcome:
After studying the re-roofing plan for the Little Barn 2b Harrowden Road Orlingbury, the Parish Clerk was requested to write to the development control officer requesting that construction traffic entering and leaving the site would ensure that there is no hazard to road users and pedestrians during building alterations.
3.2
Application No: WP/2009/0024/F- Construction of five new dwellings and a new access road to land off Isham Road Orlingbury.
Location: Stables and land adjacent 24 Isham Road, Orlingbury ,Wellingborough.
3.2.1
The Chairman, Mr Steve Miles opened discussion by summarising the project and outlining concerns relating to
· a proposed access point at the centre of the existing dangerous bend
· potential overload of existing services e.g sewage which had caused problems in the past
· location on a dangerous bend in a road commonly used by horse riders and pedestrians
· a problem of speeding cars underlined in the traffic survey conducted by the PC
· existing problems of parking in and around the Leys where narrow and busy roads currently, caused problems
· the development would be beyond the village boundary and existing building lines
3.2.2
Discussion involving the public
Mr Smith and Mr Derry underlined the concerns of the chairman. And Mr Derry also referred to perceived inaccuracies in the development proposal which inferred that
· the “access point” at the centre of the property was an official entrance
· stone and brick finishing was a common feature in the centre of the village
· that the development would complete successive layers of building expansion
Mr Derry said that the recent traffic survey underscored the hazards of speeding traffic coming into the village which would be exacerbated by the creation of turning points on the bend to the approach to the village.
Mrs Widdup spoke of the existing dangers of speeding traffic which had resulted in many near accidents and would be worsened by a the creation of a driveway outside the village envelope.
Dr Staff said that a similar project had been rejected in 1972 and that the existing Borough Development Plan constrained the development of housing to within the envelope. The development was outside the village envelope and would create “open house” for further development creating a precedent for expansion beyond the point where our social cohesion as a village community could be sustained. He also spoke of the dangers of introducing vehicle access points on a hazardous bend.
He hoped that the Parish Council would take a view on the development and would urge the Borough Planning Controller to reject it.
Mrs Staff stated that apart from her personal concerns that new Building would overlook the five windows on their adjacent property, Plot 1 would increase the likelihood of a serious accident, “a fatality waiting to happen”. Visibility was now poor. It was debateable whether “improved visibility”, when added to greater traffic use would not simply compromise future ability to really, improve safety. The Paddock area was not as had been stated, a flat area. Further building would increase run-off and given changes in climate contribute to flooding at the access point between the new development and existing houses.
Mrs Smith, speaking on behalf of villagers from the Leys who could not attend, endorsed previous concerns but also gave several instances where the sewage and water drainage systems in the Leys area had failed indicating that the village infrastructure was too weak to sustain additional pressure. Councillor Rowlatt and Councillor Rootham agreed. Councillor Rootham outlined instances of failure and explaining the vulnerable structure of the existing systems.
Speaking on behalf of the project Mr Lewis explained its background pointing out that at the time of earlier consideration when a planning application for projected building had been rejected, the Borough Council had ruled that further infill would need to take place before development would be entertained. He explained that a survey conducted by him in 1972 had found villagers largely in favour of further expansion.
Mr Simson stated that villagers’ concerns in relation to services infrastructure would be taken on board.
Councillor Rootham stated that he had studied existing Borough Council policy which, notwithstanding the need for revision ,would obtain until future review had taken place.
3.2.3
Mr Smith and Mr Derry underlined the concerns of the chairman. And Mr Derry also referred to perceived inaccuracies in the development proposal which inferred that
· the “access point” at the centre of the property was an official entrance
· stone and brick finishing was a common feature in the centre of the village
· that the development would complete successive layers of building expansion
Mr Derry said that the recent traffic survey underscored the hazards of speeding traffic coming into the village which would be exacerbated by the creation of turning points on the bend to the approach to the village.
Mrs Widdup spoke of the existing dangers of speeding traffic which had resulted in many near accidents and would be worsened by a the creation of a driveway outside the village envelope.
Dr Staff said that a similar project had been rejected in 1972 and that the existing Borough Development Plan constrained the development of housing to within the envelope. The development was outside the village envelope and would create “open house” for further development creating a precedent for expansion beyond the point where our social cohesion as a village community could be sustained. He also spoke of the dangers of introducing vehicle access points on a hazardous bend.
He hoped that the Parish Council would take a view on the development and would urge the Borough Planning Controller to reject it.
Mrs Staff stated that apart from her personal concerns that new Building would overlook the five windows on their adjacent property, Plot 1 would increase the likelihood of a serious accident, “a fatality waiting to happen”. Visibility was now poor. It was debateable whether “improved visibility”, when added to greater traffic use would not simply compromise future ability to really, improve safety. The Paddock area was not as had been stated, a flat area. Further building would increase run-off and given changes in climate contribute to flooding at the access point between the new development and existing houses.
Mrs Smith, speaking on behalf of villagers from the Leys who could not attend, endorsed previous concerns but also gave several instances where the sewage and water drainage systems in the Leys area had failed indicating that the village infrastructure was too weak to sustain additional pressure. Councillor Rowlatt and Councillor Rootham agreed. Councillor Rootham outlined instances of failure and explaining the vulnerable structure of the existing systems.
Speaking on behalf of the project Mr Lewis explained its background pointing out that at the time of earlier consideration when a planning application for projected building had been rejected, the Borough Council had ruled that further infill would need to take place before development would be entertained. He explained that a survey conducted by him in 1972 had found villagers largely in favour of further expansion.
Mr Simson stated that villagers’ concerns in relation to services infrastructure would be taken on board.
Councillor Rootham stated that he had studied existing Borough Council policy which, notwithstanding the need for revision ,would obtain until future review had taken place.
3.2.3
Parish Council Discussion
The Chairman summed up referring to previous points, adding that affordable housing was a major component of the Norton Close development but that the need for affordable housing in the village should continue to inform any proposal.
3.2.2
Outcome:
After studying the development plans for the construction of five new dwellings and a new access road to land off Isham Road and listening to the concerns of the public raised at a meeting, the Parish Clerk was requested by the Parish Council to write to the Development Control Officer to raise the following issues with respect to the development:
1. The project would appear to breach rulings designed to ensure that future development does not extend beyond the agreed village boundary and thus compromise policy to restrict future expansion. The Parish Council registers concern that the development breaches policy and therefore, sets a precedent for future development on other sites.
2. The prospective developer expresses a view that the dangerous bend on the Isham Road would be improved by the proposed development. The Parish Council are concerned that increased traffic generated by additional housing using two additional entrances on the bend may lead to additional hazard and may compromise future moves to overcome this hazard altogether.
3. The existing infrastructure particularly, sewage and drainage arrangements are overstretched to the extent that existing properties experience frequent problems. The Parish Council are concerned that the development will compromise the existing facilities.
4. In view of the far reaching implications of this project and the complexities of issues raised, to request that a site visit take place.
There being no further business the meeting was closed at 9.10 pm, with thanks from the Chair to those attending.
………………………. ……………………….
Chairman Date
The Chairman summed up referring to previous points, adding that affordable housing was a major component of the Norton Close development but that the need for affordable housing in the village should continue to inform any proposal.
3.2.2
Outcome:
After studying the development plans for the construction of five new dwellings and a new access road to land off Isham Road and listening to the concerns of the public raised at a meeting, the Parish Clerk was requested by the Parish Council to write to the Development Control Officer to raise the following issues with respect to the development:
1. The project would appear to breach rulings designed to ensure that future development does not extend beyond the agreed village boundary and thus compromise policy to restrict future expansion. The Parish Council registers concern that the development breaches policy and therefore, sets a precedent for future development on other sites.
2. The prospective developer expresses a view that the dangerous bend on the Isham Road would be improved by the proposed development. The Parish Council are concerned that increased traffic generated by additional housing using two additional entrances on the bend may lead to additional hazard and may compromise future moves to overcome this hazard altogether.
3. The existing infrastructure particularly, sewage and drainage arrangements are overstretched to the extent that existing properties experience frequent problems. The Parish Council are concerned that the development will compromise the existing facilities.
4. In view of the far reaching implications of this project and the complexities of issues raised, to request that a site visit take place.
There being no further business the meeting was closed at 9.10 pm, with thanks from the Chair to those attending.
………………………. ……………………….
Chairman Date
No comments:
Post a Comment