West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit

           Cliftonville House

           Bedford Road

           Northampton

                                                                            NN4 7NR                                                                          

  03 February 2010

  Dear Sirs,

Re: Draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
 
Roade Parish Council wishes to make the following comments about the above mentioned consultation document.  The comments are in two parts; general comments and site-specific comments.

General Comments

We consider that the current infrastructure within and around the village of Roade would simply be unable to cope with development of the size and scale contained in these proposals.  Furthermore, none of the proposals either retain or promote employment within Roade, essential if the viability and sustainability of the village is to be preserved.
 
South Northants Council (SNC) is currently drawing up the ‘Roade Masterplan’ with  the final draft due to be discussed at the SNC Cabinet Meeting in March 2010 ie next month.  As with other Masterplans, this will be a strategic document that will inform all future planning decisions relating to development within Roade Parish, for the foreseeable future. 

It is therefore unfortunate that your consultation closes before the Roade Masterplan is published.  Whilst we would have preferred to await publication before commenting, we recognise that this is not possible.  That said, we wish to make it quite clear that the comments we have made at this time are
‘pre-Masterplan’ and we reserve the right to change our view, in line with the Masterplan, in any future consultation, should we deem this to be necessary.

Our response is based not just on the views of the Parish Council alone but is also informed by the comments from the approximately 75 residents of Roade who attended  the meeting of the Parish Council’s Planning and Policies Committee held on 02 February.  We trust, sincerely therefore that these views are given proper consideration as this process moves to the next stage.     

Yours faithfully,

John Marshall
Clerk to The Council

Comments from Roade Parish Council on the WNJPU’s SHLAA Proposals

SNC 578   Courteenhall Road  

• The site is not wholly in the ownership of applicants – specifically, part of site is owned by Roade Playing Field Charity
• This development would severely impact upon the character of the village of Roade without bringing any benefit to the village; it would essentially be akin to a new development.  The size of the site could lead to coalescence with other villages and eventually with Northampton
• Site would not relate in any form to the existing village and would be a wholly separate development requiring a wide range of its own facilities including schools, medical services and local service centre
• There would be substantial impact on the M1 Junction 15 and local roads.  The A508, already acknowledged by NCC Highways as being above capacity, especially at peak hours could not cope with the likely amount of additional traffic, both northbound and southbound.  This would add significantly to the existing traffic congestion through the centre of Roade village, further increasing the air pollution
• Part of the land is on the west side of the railway loop line with no apparent means of access
• Absorption of rainwater by farmland would no longer occur, leading to substantial run-off and risk of flooding
• Development of this site would lead to a loss of farmland (currently under cultivation) and a loss of wildlife corridors
• The site contains identified archaeological sites as shown on NCC’s HER Maps for Roade

SNC 043   Hartwell Road

• We do not understand why this site (outlined in red) has been linked with
  SNC 090, since the sites are in different ownership with no interlinked access; the overlay of red dotted lines on the black solid lines is confusing.  Furthermore, we consider that there are no grounds for linking this site to SNC 090 as the two are significantly and materially different in their nature
• The site is the subject of an Area Tree Preservation Order that was put in place to protect the geographical shape of the plantation; removal of trees and replanting elsewhere is not an option therefore
• We are opposed to the development of ‘greenfield’ sites within the village when alternative ‘brownfield’ sites are available (eg SNC 095, 096)
• This site comprises the last stand of mature trees within the village
• The wildlife living within the woodland that forms this site includes a colony of bats (a protected species), together with owls and woodpeckers
• Limited access widths and other constraints included in the deeds and conveyances of adjoining dwellings constrain development of this site.  There is no access to this site from the Bretts Lane (south east) corner
• Planning Permission for this site has previously been sought and refused (on Appeal) on a number of occasions
• We note that in the SHLAA ‘Assessment of Deliverability / Developability’ description, this site is referred to as ‘located adjacent to Roade urban area. This description does not appear in any other site being promoted and we  wonder why this descriptor has been used

SNC 083   Stratford Road (Chaplin’s) 

• We have concerns regarding access onto A508 and the increase in volume of traffic on the local roads that would arise
• We are opposed to the development of dwellings on sites that currently offer employment, as the employment opportunities will be lost, leading to erosion of the village’s ‘sustainability’
• This site adjoins a wildlife ‘corridor’ and habitats

SNC 089   Midshires Way (Bretts Lane to Fox Covert Drive)  
 

• We would require evidence that no part of site has been used for disposal of factory waste
• The site is significantly lower than the surrounding terrain and we are concerned that the site would be prone to flooding, were it to be opened up from the existing highway

SNC 090   Adjacent to the Primary School

• We do not understand why this site (outlined in red) has been linked with
  SNC 043, since the sites are in different ownership with no interlinked access; the overlay of red dotted lines on the black solid lines is confusing.  Furthermore, we consider that there are no grounds for linking this site to SNC 043 as the two are significantly and materially different in their nature
• As the former Primary School sports field, it would be required for use again, should pupil numbers increase. 
• Any increase in population will require further recreational and sports facilities; the loss, through development of existing sporting and recreational facilities is not acceptable.   

SNC 091   Northampton Road East (opposite cricket field) 

• The Roade Masterplan is likely to consider this space as a “green passage” with SNC 092
• We would require the footprint of any development to more appropriately align with the existing and adjoining developments
• We are opposed to the loss of agricultural land (currently under cultivation)
• We have concerns over the impact of additional traffic onto the already busy Northampton Road
• The land is known to contain a former pond at the northern edge and would therefore be prone to flooding
• Roade Cemetery abuts this site and there will be a need to extend the Cemetery within the next few years.  Any significant increase in the size of the Roade population will accelerate this need

SNC 092   Northampton Road West (cricket field)  

• The Roade Masterplan is likely to consider this space as a “green passage” with SNC 091
• The site is referred to by SNC as ‘important green space’; furthermore, it is described in the current Taylor Wimpey Sales literature for the Grafton Gate development within Roade village  as ‘one of the finest club cricket grounds in the country’
• Any increase in population will require further recreational and sports facilities; the loss, through development of existing sporting and recreational facilities is not acceptable
• Planning Permission has been previously sought and refused for this site

SNC 093   Blisworth Road (including football field)  

• The extra traffic generated would exacerbate air pollution at the Hyde Road exit onto the A508 and cause additional traffic delays there
• The existing highway in the direction of Blisworth is also unsuitable for the additional traffic volumes that would arise
• This includes an important and well-used football ground and social facility
• This area has previously been subject to significant flooding; residents have been unable to obtain household insurance against flooding

SNC 094   Stratford Road (Old Quarry)    

• Registered as Contaminated Waste Site (Licence No, S/78/013) and is unsuitable for housing development.  Waste is apparently similar to that at Hartwell Road quarry (Planning Application refused by SNC 2006/07)
• We are concerned over the impact of extra traffic on the wider road network
• This is an important wildlife ‘corridor’ and habitat
• The site has archaeological importance, possibly as an ancient burial site according to NCC’s HER maps for Roade

SNC 095   Ashton Road West (PSL factory)  

• We consider the information contained in your descriptors of this site to be at best confusing and at worst incorrect.  The red dotted line that partly overlays the black solid line(s) gives rise to considerable confusion over the relationship between this site and SNC 452.  Parts of this site are already subject to outline Planning Permission and contrary to what is stated the site is not vacant; it is currently a working factory providing employment. 
  
  We also consider that there are no grounds for linking this site to SNC 452 as the two are significantly and materially different in their nature, is part ‘greenfield’, part industrial, part contaminated, as well as being separated by a public footpath and several private dwellings.
   
  For all of these reasons, we consider that it would be imprudent for us to comment on such a major site, lest our interpretation of the proposal is subsequently found to be incorrect.  We would therefore ask you to provide clarification on these points before the site is considered further.
  

SNC 096   Ashton Road East (factory car park)

• We have no comments about this site  

SNC 235   Abbotts Way  

• The narrowness of the existing highway could not safely handle the additional daily traffic movements.  Furthermore, additional traffic movements would worsen both the already severe air quality issues and congestion at the Hyde Road junction with the A508, where traffic currently faces considerable delays at peak hours
• There is currently no access to this site
• This would increase the risk of solifluction above the section of Roade Cutting that carries the West Coast Main Line

SNC 242   Former Walkerpack site  

• We are unclear as to why this site has been included as it is already being developed (83 houses under construction by Taylor Wimpey)

SNC 445   Dovecote Farm  

• We believe this site to lie within Stoke Bruerne parish, but we note that this site has been discarded due to lack of access.  However, should access be gained through the existing bridle path from Roade parish, traffic movements from this site would prompt the same traffic and air quality concerns as for SNC 235

SNC 452   The Leys and Hartwell Road

• We consider the information contained in your descriptors of this site to be at best confusing and at worst incorrect.  The red dotted line that partly overlays the black solid line(s) gives rise to considerable confusion over the relationship between this site and SNC 095 site.   We also consider that there are no grounds for linking this site to SNC 095 as the two are significantly and materially different in their nature as well as being separated by a public footpath and several private dwellings in different ownerships.  Part of the land is subject to both Group and individual Tree Preservation Orders and the majority of this site is a contaminated waste site, rendering it wholly unsuitable for development as per Planning Permission Refusal by SNC in 2006/07.
  
  For all of these reasons, we consider that it would be imprudent for us to comment on such a major site, lest our interpretation of the proposal is subsequently found to be incorrect.  We would therefore ask you to provide
  clarification on these points before the site is considered further.