NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN QUESTION AND ANSWERS FORUM HELD AT THE VILLAGE HALL
12TH MAY 2015 AT 7.30 PM
1. Mike Jackson, 26 The Green, Kislingbury:
Q. “This sounds a huge workload for the Examiner and could be a long time. Could then a person come along and put in a planning application?”
A. Examiners will take about 6 weeks. They are professional and have done it many times and know what to look for as far as the procedure that you go through. We have worked with SNC and are so close to producing the Plan, I do not anticipate they would not approve it. It can be delayed if they find something that is not in the Plan. It is in the interest of SNC to get this Neighbourhood Plan through as soon as possible.
2. Nova Huggins, 15 Millers Close, Kislingbury:
Q. “Same question but what happens if plans are already going ahead?”
A. We have had conversations with Persimmon about the Beech Lane site. They have a contract with Mr Hopewell. They know that their site is in the list but also know that we require 40 houses and know that site cannot deliver that size. They know they cannot provide our needs.
3. Edgar Harley, 4 The Orchard, Kislingbury:
Q. “When the Plan goes forward for assessment and not right will they give it back to you?”
A. If they throw the Plan out – and they certainly could do – but we have been guided up to a point by SNC who will themselves know that we have complied with everything. The Examiner will not throw the whole thing out but may make recommendations for one or two things to be changed.
Q. “So when will that be?”
A. January 2016. It is unlikely it will be thrown out. More likely is if the Village says “No”! as in Yardley Gobion in 2012. They produced a very complex Plan and they did not consult with the people of the Village. There was a revolt and threats of violence and it never got as far as the Referendum. The Village said “no” there will be no Plan.
4. Geraint Ffoulkes-Jones, 31 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “Is it necessary for the whole Village to vote for the Plan?”
A. No, a quorum. It is a sample. If there are 14 people who vote, we need 8 people to say “yes” – it’s 50%.
5. Jonathon Hughes, 33 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “Who can vote? Can everyone?”
A. If you are on the Voting Register, you can vote. There will be a voting booth – the same as the recent General Election – and you put an ‘X’ on “yes” or “no”. You have to be over 18.
6. Greg Savage, 17 The Orchard, Kislingbury:
Q. “Regarding Beech Lane/Persimmon – do all designated houses house to be on one plot?”
A. No.
Q. “So if Beech Lane goes through, that is on one site, but you are suggesting it could be 12 on each of two sites?”
A. We haven’t finalised our views yet on which may be the primary site.
7. Geraint Ffoulkes-Jones, 31 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “Could there be a different split of the 40?”
A. The Housing Survey is only just completed and we want to know the numbers but not heard yet.
8. John Tapsell, 11 Middle Street, Nether Heyford:
Q. “Are the 40 houses over 14 years so you can split it up?”
A. Absolutely. If primary site not acted on then option will be given to second site or third one.
9. Dennis Tidmarsh, 31 The Green, Kislingbury:
Q. “How long will Neighbourhood Plan be effective for?”
A. Till 2029
POLICIES SHOWN – Parish Council has seen them and are happy to accept them and we will now go through them.
10. Jonathan Hughes, 33 Church Lane:
Q. “Traffic congestion – More people coming into Village, more traffic, heavy traffic such as Heygates.”
A. Traffic calming – the Parish Council have had a survey done and there will be VAS signs displayed and other measures used. The Plan does not make it work. Will look to see if 106 money can be utilised.
11. Dennis Tidmarsh, 31 The Green, Kislingbury:
Q. “Concern about lights in the Village. Some areas in the Village are very dark and if there are more people coming into the Village there will need to be more lights.”
A. Lighting needs to be replaced with downward not upward lights as there is no pollution with downward lights.
12. Geraint Ffoulkes-Jones, 31 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “Am concerned about light pollution from warehouses.”
A. They have to comply also but we can’t do anything about it.
13. Dennis Tidmarsh, 31 the Green, Kislingbury:
Q. “My concern is about HGV traffic through the Village. Parish Council doing nothing about it.”
A. We’ve seen traffic increase. It used to be tractors and farm vehicles but now we get more Bugbrooke traffic. It’s not ours but it comes through Kislingbury to get to Bugbrooke – it’s their only way.
14. Mike Jackson, 26 The Green, Kislingbury:
Q. “One farmer applied for a licence for more transport storage. Can we restrict growth of this kind?”
A. Yes
15. Roy Jackson, 10 Watts Close, Kislingbury:
Q. “My query is tenancy mix, intermediate housing.”
A. Will take it out.
16. Mike Jackson, 26 The Green, Kislingbury:
Q. “Am in full agreement with H5 but how can you say the houses built will go to Village people/or families of Village people?”
A. Developer will have to. It is proposed that the Housing Association (Affordable Housing) will be made aware to residents of Village. When allocating Affordable Housing, the Plan will define how allocated.
17. Geraint Ffloulkes-Jones, 31 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “You say there has to be 50% Affordable Housing but also say can be modified.”
A. 50% is maximum, not minimum. If we require 50% we can change/specify what we want. No obligation. 50% is target but can go less than 50%.
Q. What happens if time limit not taken up? Will it be offered to others?”
A. Yes it will be.
18. Nova Huggins, 15 Millers Way, Kislingbury:
Q. “Houses in Watts Close were not offered to the Village!”
A. Watts Close was under different rules re Affordable Housing – there were no rules. We will have the right to distribute them. We set the rules for the Housing Association. Watts Close was not relative to a Neighbourhood Plan. I don’t know how it happened. We are setting rules for the future. That is the criteria of the Meeting. Sites will now conform to the Joint Core Strategy. Houses in Watts Close were not part of this new system. We can’t re-hash past housing decisions.
19. Jonathan Hughes, 33 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “Any guidance for looking at parents or children of Villagers? 8 or so houses could go to parents/grandparents.”
A. Affordable Housing is for people who can’t afford to buy houses. If we don’t have a Plan, a developer could come in and build 40 Charles Church type houses. The strength of the Village is not for just one generation. It needs to be mixed.
20. Geraint Ffoulkes-Jones, 31 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “Why does it matter if you build an extra bedroom extension?”
A. Need stock of smaller houses – one or two bedroom houses. Instead of moving ‘up market’ and turn a 2 bedroom house into a 3 bedroom one, the stock of small houses diminishes and you don’t necessarily get your investment back. It doesn’t help to reduce the number. This policy is in other parts of the country. Smaller houses should stay small. I’m expressing the Policies. If this is not what you want to see in the Plan then please fill in the Feedback Form. We have to have feedback.
21. Edgar Harley, 4 The Orchard, Kislingbury:
“I don’t want anyone saying I can’t build another bedroom. I don’t want anyone telling me “NO”!
22. Bernard Gent, Willow Cottage, Hodges Lane, Kislingbury:
Q. “Why infill sites not included as part of required number?”
A. Infill can’t. They are commercial opportunities to make money. Developers have to make a profit so we have to work with developers.
23. Nova Huggins, 15 Millers Close, Kislingbury:
Q. “What about putting traffic calming in place?”
A. This is something for the Parish Council to decide.
A. Parish Council: New housing will inevitably bring more vehicles into the Village and we don’t have any jurisdiction over this. With 40 more houses there will be possibly 80 more vehicles and we have to accept this.
A. The site behind Watts Close has access and egress. Two times every year traffic movements are monitored. A big problem is that we are a ‘rat run’ through the Village and there is nothing the Plan can do to stop it.
24. Geraint Ffoulkes-Jones, 31 Church Lane, Kislingbury:
“Minimum of 2 cars a good idea - 4 or 5 for 4/5 bedroom houses.”
25. Edgar Harley, 4 The Orchard, Kislingbury:
“In The Orchard we have double width garages but no one uses them – they park all over the road.”
A. Future drives will try to make it better.
FEEDBACK FORMS FROM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING MEETING IN VILLAGE HALL – 12TH MAY 2015
1. “Important to establish housing mix that enables cross-generated and social mix to exist. So need for low-cost market housing for new families. Smaller houses (affordable) for older people downsizing or requiring specialised or sheltered housing.”
Requires a response.
2. “Traffic Excess”
Requires a response – “Answers via Kis News or Notice Boards so everyone can see answers, not just me.”
3. “Important to use section 106 money to bring in effective traffic calming measures including consideration of one way system for Church Lane/High Street/Bugbrooke Road.”
Requires a response.
4. “The Committee have worked so hard to put this Plan together. Many thanks.”
Sue Deane (Parish Councillor)
5. 1) Low price/affordable housing required.
2) Maybe on 2 x split sites, rather than 1 x large site of 40 properties, ie Rothersthorpe Road and Beech Lane sites.
No response required.
6. Thank you very much for the presentation. However I should like to make some comments:
1) Your charts showed great concern by a large proportion of Village residents who didn’t want any building closing the “Gap” between Kislingbury and Northampton.
2) A large proportion of the Village didn’t want any building on the east of the Village.
Therefore I cannot understand why Beech Lane development is on your list at all. There are other sites around the Parish that are more suitable. I know you have to be unbiased but the Village voted not to have building at Beech Lane. Therefore you are going against the Neighbourhood so this is not, and cannot be, a Neighbourhood Plan!! whilst Beech Lane is in it as acceptable building land. You also state that behind Watts Close is first choice and that is where they will build but you cannot say that because there are a lot of devious people in this world and if you open the door just a fraction they will at some time put in plans and because of the fact you have nominated Beech Lane as sustainable building land it will be accepted by South Northants.
No response required.
7. I do feel that Village Residents’ wishes should have been included in the criteria for site selection process. It does rather look as if no notice has been taken. Beech Lane is shown as second choice in site selection but actually reached top position for no building at all in the questionnaires to protect the Gap!
No response required.