Neighbourhood Development Plan Consultation Event: 2-4pm, 4th February 2017

32 PEOPLE ATTENDED AND COMMENTS WERE MADE ON POST-ITS UNDER THE HEADINGS SHOWN BELOW

Key to response column:

A – already/to be addressed within the NP

B – already being addressed by Parish Council

C – show as potential project in NP

D – comment is unclear – no action

n/a – not applicable to NP – no action

Comments on the Themes, Vision and Objectives

RESPONSE

REASONING/NOTES

1

Priority for the pedestrian please. Irresponsible parking impacts on the most vulnerable in our community

C

Could initiate assessment of whole village traffic management

2

Renewable energy?

D

3

Neighbourhood Plan could bring forward proposal to enhance the Square and deal with eyesore on Alms House Hill

A+C (Square)

B (almshouse)

Square – include in Policy for village assets

Almshouse site – PC already tried with LCC-

4

Speed restrictions needed on Clifford Road

B

PC liaising with LCC

5

Halt sign needed from Bowcliffe Road into Paradise Way. Cars shoot out without stopping

n/a

Already there

6

Don’t incur major expenditure on Senior Citizens Shelter – no justification for it

B

PC gathering views on development

7

Scenario planning for size of buildings, impact to the village from the mix of buildings to help people see the future

A

Comments on Village Assets

8

Doctors surgery

A

Add to village assets policy

9

Cycle paths

A

Include in Sports &leisure policy

10

No spreading of area with more large estates

A

In Housing policy

11

Garden areas

A

In natural environment policy

12

School

A

In assets policy

13

Wildlife area

A

In natural environment policy

14

Green space – but in reality can these be protected/supported?

A

In natural environment policy

Comments on Housing

15

Agree on affordable housing – but no visibility of it to date – price of land is the issue

A

In housing policy

16

Small flats would serve a need and take up less space (not skyscrapers though

A

17

More small unit housing – starter homes and retirement friendly

A

18

No more large houses

A

19

More affordable housing. We are an ageing population! Need young people

A

20

No more large development, executive housing. More family homes and homes for elderly

A

Comments on Transport

21

Make top of Windmill Road 30mph

B

22

We need 30mph speed restriction as car speed 60mph down and it’s a lit road

D

Not clear where

23

20mph throughout village

C

See comment 1 above

24

More cycle paths

A

Include in Sports &leisure policy

25

Green transport plan for school

n/a

Not in our ‘power’ – school issue

26

Transport to Tadcaster and York

A

In Transport policy

27

Climate change and the impact on Bramham – utter nonsense and only puts money into the pockets of a self serving industry

n/a

28

Public transport links to York are poor

A

In Transport policy

29

Many footpaths in the parish are in poor condition – overgrown etc – who is responsible for these

D

Too vague to address

Comments on Natural Environment

30

Is the beck green area opposite school in Bramham or not?

n/a

No it isn’t – but what’s the relevance/point

31

More grass near Bramham school

D

32

Where does wildlife area fit into this?

A

In Natural environment

33

“Special circumstances” re: development in local green space – what does this mean? (See Dean)

D

Can Dean help?

Comments on Heritage

34

I think the Square heritage – look of – should be preserved

A

Village asset

35

I think the church is a heritage asset

A

36

Low Way chimney pots?

A

37

Stone posts?

A

Assume mean milestones

38

Concern about Bramham House and Bramham Biggin. Are these non designated heritage assets?

A

Already SHLAA sites

Comments on Projects & Aspirations

39

Develop Pavilion sympathetically for the benefit of the community – events and activities focused on developing and supporting aspirations. Car boot sales and similar events don’t fall into that category

A+B

Already in assets

PC addressed car boot sale issue – allowed 1 per year

40

Consider one way systems especially in older/narrow streets

C

41

Some signs obscured by vegetation

n/a

Too vague to address

42

Playing field not suitable for car boot sales etc

B

See 39 above

43

Capital projects should not process unless adequate revenue support in place

B

PC already considers ongoing maintenance costs of any project

44

Further development on playing field will reduce green space – look at other areas in the village

A

PC has applied for Fields in Trust protection for playing field

45

Car parking at school not required – school should have green travel plan and promote walking

n/a

Not within our ‘power’

46

Old folk’s shelter

A+B

Already an asset – and PC gathering views on development

General comments

47

What has been expenditure to date on fees? Please can this be reported in PC minutes/parish magazine?

Report in Parish Magazine that grant has been obtained – no expenditure from precept – and all payment of fees shown in Parish Council minutes