Vision 2031 public inquiry - second morning
Thursday, 6th February 2014.
The second morning of the public inquiry into Vision 2031, the document which will guide Haverhill development over the next 20 years, dealt with the growth areas of north-west and north-east Haverhill, where a total of 3,600 new homes would be built.
The initial debate was about the provision of the north-west relief road joining Withersfield Road and Wratting Road.
In response to close questioning from the Government inspector carrying out the examination, St Edmundsbury Borough Council and Bidwells, agents for the landowner on the north-east and part of the north-west sites, produced some new wording, aimed at making the provision of the road watertight.
Bidwells acknowledged their client was prepared to contribute tothe costs of the road as part of the north-east development and there was debate about how many houses could be allowed there before the road was built.
Bidwells' traffic flow expert said if the road was not provided it would be possible to mitigate traffic congestion by installing a three-way traffic light system at the Cangle Junction.
Town clerk Will Austin, representing the town council, saoid he detected horror on the faces of local residents attending at this thought.
He said the community was very concerned that the road should be put in place at the earliest opportunity.
Suffolk County Council were only prepared to agree that another 300 homes could be built in north-west Haverhill before the road would have to be provided. Bidwells had talked in terms of 460, and 500-800 in north-est Haverhill aswell.
Edward Keymer, of development consultants Keymer Cavendish, said plans and councils did not deliver much-needed new housing - the private sector did and if heavy infrastructure requirements were linked with planning permissions developments would become unviable and the housing just wouldn't be built.
He urged the inspector to look beyond what the county and borough councils, and local residents, were saying and look at viability because the housing need in the district was overwhelming.
Haverhill resident Ian Johnson, representing 350 residents, called for increased parkland at the south-eastern edge of the north-est Haverhill development, known as Wilsey Park.
Some 20 hectares were allocated at present but Mr Johnson wanted 30, to join on to East Town Park and make Haverhill's first country park.
He said Bury St Edmunds had two country parks, Clare one and there was one at Wandlebury, but Haverhill had none, and was under-provided for in nature reserves as well.
Marcia Whitehead of Bidwells said it was not the job of north-east Haverhill to provide for past shortfalls in the town in terms of amenity land.
Calford Green resident Barbara Surridge urged a wider buffer of landscaping and trees, saying there was just 600 metres between the edge of this proposed development and Calford Green - across a valley.
Mr Keymer called for some of this amenity land to be given over to more houses - another 200 or more and to within 400 metres of Calford Green.
What was proposed in the plan was not best use of land in the National Planning Policy Framework. There was already a huge over-provision of open space in the proposal, he claimed.
If some of the densities were increased another 300-400 homes could be included. Currently it was a typical case of new housing being sited where it caused the least inconvenience to local residents.
He said he didn't expect it to be a popular view but he expressed it in the context of the district housing need. Not making the best use of land would make the plan 'unsound', he said.
Mr Johnson questioned the inclusion of a third access road to Wilsey Park, exiting into Coupals Road.
He said it was strongly opposed and traffic surveys had shown there was no need for it.
Miss Whitehead said work was still being done and early indications were there was no need for it, but it was included on an indicative plan in case it was needed.
Mr Austin suggested it should be taken out, but it was only included in the concept statement drawn up by Bidwells and agreed with St Edmundsbury, which was not a document for the inspector to examine.
Mr Clews seemed to agree with the council and Bidwells that the access and the country park issues were more suited for debate when the Masterplan for the site was drawn up.
The initial debate was about the provision of the north-west relief road joining Withersfield Road and Wratting Road.
In response to close questioning from the Government inspector carrying out the examination, St Edmundsbury Borough Council and Bidwells, agents for the landowner on the north-east and part of the north-west sites, produced some new wording, aimed at making the provision of the road watertight.
Bidwells acknowledged their client was prepared to contribute tothe costs of the road as part of the north-east development and there was debate about how many houses could be allowed there before the road was built.
Bidwells' traffic flow expert said if the road was not provided it would be possible to mitigate traffic congestion by installing a three-way traffic light system at the Cangle Junction.
Town clerk Will Austin, representing the town council, saoid he detected horror on the faces of local residents attending at this thought.
He said the community was very concerned that the road should be put in place at the earliest opportunity.
Suffolk County Council were only prepared to agree that another 300 homes could be built in north-west Haverhill before the road would have to be provided. Bidwells had talked in terms of 460, and 500-800 in north-est Haverhill aswell.
Edward Keymer, of development consultants Keymer Cavendish, said plans and councils did not deliver much-needed new housing - the private sector did and if heavy infrastructure requirements were linked with planning permissions developments would become unviable and the housing just wouldn't be built.
He urged the inspector to look beyond what the county and borough councils, and local residents, were saying and look at viability because the housing need in the district was overwhelming.
Haverhill resident Ian Johnson, representing 350 residents, called for increased parkland at the south-eastern edge of the north-est Haverhill development, known as Wilsey Park.
Some 20 hectares were allocated at present but Mr Johnson wanted 30, to join on to East Town Park and make Haverhill's first country park.
He said Bury St Edmunds had two country parks, Clare one and there was one at Wandlebury, but Haverhill had none, and was under-provided for in nature reserves as well.
Marcia Whitehead of Bidwells said it was not the job of north-east Haverhill to provide for past shortfalls in the town in terms of amenity land.
Calford Green resident Barbara Surridge urged a wider buffer of landscaping and trees, saying there was just 600 metres between the edge of this proposed development and Calford Green - across a valley.
Mr Keymer called for some of this amenity land to be given over to more houses - another 200 or more and to within 400 metres of Calford Green.
What was proposed in the plan was not best use of land in the National Planning Policy Framework. There was already a huge over-provision of open space in the proposal, he claimed.
If some of the densities were increased another 300-400 homes could be included. Currently it was a typical case of new housing being sited where it caused the least inconvenience to local residents.
He said he didn't expect it to be a popular view but he expressed it in the context of the district housing need. Not making the best use of land would make the plan 'unsound', he said.
Mr Johnson questioned the inclusion of a third access road to Wilsey Park, exiting into Coupals Road.
He said it was strongly opposed and traffic surveys had shown there was no need for it.
Miss Whitehead said work was still being done and early indications were there was no need for it, but it was included on an indicative plan in case it was needed.
Mr Austin suggested it should be taken out, but it was only included in the concept statement drawn up by Bidwells and agreed with St Edmundsbury, which was not a document for the inspector to examine.
Mr Clews seemed to agree with the council and Bidwells that the access and the country park issues were more suited for debate when the Masterplan for the site was drawn up.
Comment on this story
[board listing] [login] [register]
You must be logged in to post messages. (login now)