PUBLIC MEETING TO COMMENT ON THE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON BRENTWOOD ROAD BAMFORD

Fifteen local residents came to look at the planning application for the building of eight affordable houses on Brentwood Road.  One person made the following written comments:

“We are obviously not opposed to the building of new houses to provide accommodation for local people but do feel a green field site is a poor choice.  Surely a more logical option would be the site of the old bowling green on Brentwood Road.  Other points which need to be considered are:

1. Brentwood Avenue has a very poor water pressure - are the new homes to come off the existing main?
2. Are we being kept in the dark and is this phase 1 of a bigger development?
3. Will the road be widened to accommodate the extra vehicles, lorries etc?  We would be strongly opposed to this as the present wide pavements make it a safe place for our disabled children using wheelchairs and for all the children and older people on Brentwood.

We would welcome the alteration of the junction of Brentwood Road as this is at present extremely dangerous.”

Many of the points above were also made in the discussion that followed the viewing of the plans. 

• Several other people felt that the old bowling green would be a more appropriate site for development.

• Some people were concerned that this proposed development is the thin end of the wedge.  They fear that once planning permission has been given for eight houses, the door will be open for neighbouring landowners to develop their land so that eventually there would be up to 50 new houses built.

• There was concern about the increase there would be in traffic once the houses were built

• It was noted from the plans that the electric transformer and cable would be rerouted but the new location is not shown - where will it go?

• There were contradictory views about what needed to be done on Brentwood Road about the pavements.  Some felt that there should be a pavement from the Derwent pub to join the existing pavement where the houses begin and that the pavement on the other side did not have to be as wide thus avoiding narrowing the road further, others felt the wide pavement was safer for children.

• It was agreed that the changes to the junction would probably make it safer but it was felt that double yellow lines opposite the junction were required.

• The owner of a property adjoining the proposed site for the affordable housing was concerned about the hedge on his boundary.  The plans indicate that this would be cut back.  He described it as a mini-nature reserve.  He also believed that one of the trees marked for cutting down was on his property. 

• There was general agreement that these houses should be reserved for local people and that part-ownership  rather than fully rented housing would help to ensure that the properties were well maintained.

The public meeting was followed by a Parish Council Planning Committee meeting to formulate a response to the planning application.  Whilst taking into consideration the points made in the public meeting, councillors had to make comments that they believed represented the views of the Village as a whole and that related to the content of the planning application as it stood.

The Parish Council’s response to the application is as follows:

The Parish Council is in general support of the application but has the following queries or comments:

·         We note that the transformer and overhead cable are to be moved: where will it be located?

·         We are pleased with the improvements to the Brentwood Road/Main Road junction but are concerned about parking around and opposite to it.

·         We are concerned about the information we have received that a tree belonging to the owner of One Acre, adjacent to the proposed site, is to be cut down.

·         We are concerned that water pressure is currently reported to be a problem according to a householder on Brentwood, fearing that it may become worse when additional houses are connected to the main.

·         Villagers are concerned that houses should be part owned rather than fully rented. Councillors support that view but are unclear from the statement “hence the 100% affordable rented mix” on p09 of the Design Statement what is intended.