PC Meeting about Proposed Development at the Water Tower
27 October 2005
SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC joined PC members to consider a planning application for housing on Anglian Water's 0.49ha. area of land at Mill Hill. An indicative layout plan provided shows 11 detached houses, though no number of units was described on the application form. No contributors favoured development here. Comments concentrated on the problems which new development would cause:
- Overlooking and loss of privacy for existing dwellings at lower level adjacent to the southern boundary.
- Potential stability problems from construction close to the top of the chalk bank along the southern boundary.
- Excessive number of units for a site of this size and shape.
- An increase of traffic generated onto a busy road with serious speed of road traffic and safety issues.
- The loss of an existing lay-by at the site entrance, reducing local car parking capacity.
- Noise, dust and inconvenience caused by a building site close to existing dwellings lasting maybe 12 months.
- Likelihood of more children needing places in the full village school.
As there were deficiencies and errors on the application form itself, the application may have to be re-submitted. However, ECDC had asked the PC to comment upon the number of houses proposed. Prior is described as an "in-fill only" village in the Local Plan, and this site exceeds in-fill criteria. Elsewhere, the required density for this area of land would actually demand 15 units. The PC will ask ECDC for clarification on these planning matters while sending a summary of the comments above.
This opportunity was taken to explore some of the issues of road safety along Mill Hill. School children must cross the road from the east side, while drivers seeking to leave their homes can wait up to 15 minutes for a safe opportunity to join the traffic flow where excessive speeds are the norm. It was observed that CCC had said a pedestrian safety refuge (island) in the centre of the road was impossible because the road is not wide enough. However, similar problems at Lode had been solved simply by widening the carriageway accordingly (twice). We would all like to know the reason for this apparent discrimination!