Thank-your for everyone who submitted a completed questionnaire for the Neighbourhood Plan Consultation 2013.

 

In total 431 completed forms were returned.

 

In terms of support for the Neighbourhood Plan process, 87.7% state that they support the Neighbourhood Plan, 9.05% are against, 0.93% have no view and 2.32% chose not to express a preference.

 

In addition to the returned forms,  4 letters expressing views, where received.

 

The questions were as follows:

• Question 1 – Do you support the emerging Neighbourhood Plan & agree that any housing growth should be located on the periphery of the village with access to main roads?
• Question 2 – Do you agree with the sub objectives for the plan?  Are there any others which are of higher priority?
• Question 3 – Do you support the development of a small business centre or provision of more office space within the village and where would this be best located?
• Question 4 – What level of housing density would you support on the new development site?
• Question 5 – Do you support the development of a community hall/hub at the Grange site?  Are there better alternative sites?
• Question 6 – Do you agree that properties within the village centre should/could provide wider opportunities for businesses and services?
• Question 7 – Would you support additional parking close to the village centre if appropriate sites could be sought & funding prioritised from developer contributions?  What other parking controls would you support?
• Question 8 – Do you support the improvement of pedestrian & cycle routes through the village – especially from new development for better integration?

 

The breakdown of the responses are as follows:

 

The following are the comments received, aggregated by meaning (i.e. for those comments where the same opinion was expressed, the number of times it was expressed is listed also).

• Question 1 – but don’t actually want anymore 11
• Question 1 – must include provision on school 8-11 & two access points onto Main Road or roundabout 26
• Question 1 – only because you are going to do it anyway 197
• Question 1 – north of village 206
• Question 1 – depends on definition of periphery – could be north, south, east or west?  My preference is north 219
• Question 1 – though don’t agree we need more homes 259
• Question 1 – would only support Northern development 278
• Question 1 – we feel the development should be smaller for the reasons shown under main issues affecting the village 330
• Question 1 – only to a very limited extent 336
• Question 1 – housing growth should be east, south & south/west of the village more central to the EB neighbourhood area, not on the periphery 339
• Question 1 – to the NORTH of the village – ie Grange not Aggate/Dowthorpe area 381
• Question 1 – preference for north of village 421
• Question 2 – Objective 1 to include lobby appropriate authorities to provide Dr/healthcare facilities commensurate with increased population growth. 5
• Question 2 – Partially agree (need to expand school – should be an addition) 14
• Question 2 – Sports facility other than football 16
• Question 2 – development of businesses in the village centre 17
• Question 2 – secure sports facilities (ie freehold not lease) 19
• Question 2 – pre-school provision in sustainable setting 29
• Question 2 – school parking & health centres 39
• Question 2 – school places 48
• Question 2 – new school 50
• Question 2 – only objective 1.  Existing infrastructure needs improving before building any houses. 53
• Question 2 – doctors & healthcare 59
• Question 2 – another school? 96
• Question 2 – Affordable housing, school, parking, heritage 104
• Question 2 – Yes, Objection 1 no, Objective 2 some parts. 106
• Question 2 – some of them but in principle.  Most of them. 125
• Question 2 – limit development to 50-100 houses. 128
• Question 2 – New school for 8-11 yrs 137
• Question 2 – focus on growth of the village around “The Grange” site. 143
• Question 2 – EB infrastructure , traffic control & amenities 151
• Question 2 – No one cares that 500 people need their kids educated.  Where? 159
• Question 2 – what is/are sub objectives?  Do not understand.
• Question 2 – Ob2 165
• Question 2 – more affordable housing 167
• Question 2 – Obj 2 – rather than maintain opportunities, it should encourage more opportunities 188
• Question 2 – current residents & families have priority allocation of housing 197
• Question 2 – The David Wilson Homes will not be affordable to many & do not meet the many objectives 207
• Question 2 – GP & healthcare service provision for housing expansion 212
• Question 2 – there won’t be any sympathetic open space with 250 houses 214
• Question 2 – rejuvenate the existing Industrial Estate; revitalise closed buildings 219
• Question 2 – I agree with most of the sub objectives but am worried about the vagueness of “fill in development”!  I am against the Alibone Rd Development which could be seen as fill in 220
• Question 2 – not to extend footprint of village between current parish boundaries 222
• Question 2 – parking must be addressed 227
• Question 2 – no new buildings 259
• Question 2 – car parking in centre 260
• Question 2 – if there is no more influx of people spend money on better things 266
• Question 2 – cycle routes through WHOLE village 268
• Question 2 – parking 276
• Question 2 – infill development a bit wide open, must maintain village feel & consider traffic access 284
• Question 2 – in theory – but in reality? 286
• Question 2 – we need a swimming pool & sheltered housing 295
• Question 2 – minimise the impact on air quality by reducing traffic congestion 318
• Question 2 – if village increases, needs to be more shops in centre & secondary school 319
• Question 2 – improving parking facilities throughout the village 320
• Question 2 – parking & more facilities such as banking 321
• Question 2 – objective 4 must be the top priority 329
• Question 2 – sports facilities should be for all sports not just football & cricket 331
• Question 2 – in principle, but more consultation on these is needed 335
• Question 2 – My view is that before ay development is allowed in the village (& bear in mind this is a village) by any developer the school needs to be extended or the existing school is for infants & a new school for juniors.  Also medical facilities put in place as once any development takes place these facilities are overlooked 336
• Question 2 – build around Northampton & Wellingborough 337
• Question 2 – you cannot have a yes/no answer to so many objectives.  There should be a yes/no box for each sub-objective & space for comments 339
• Question 2 – support for improved medical facilities 352
• Question 2 – provide funding/space for village centre car park (Barkers?) 353
• Question 2 – keeping the village a village 355
• Question 2 – school is crucial – it is already at capacity 374
• Question 2 – expansion of schools to be high priority 375
• Question 2 – objective 3 376
• Question 2 – schooling, shops 389
• Question 2 – objective 2 – housing for people with a learning disability – bring income into village, bring diversity, bring jobs 390
• Question 2 – public transport needs to be more accessible 392
• Question 2 – objective 4 – subobjective 1 – ie direct access to main roads 393
• Question 2 – character & within existing boundary 398
• Question 2 – any development should be complimented by equal amenities to sustain increased usage 404
• Question 2 – move the school to improve it & increase parking 410
• Question 2 – new school 411
• Question 2 – bigger school – more central parking 414
• Question 2 – medical facilities 419
• Question 2 – except for business centre 422
• Question 2 – create cycleways & provide storage 425
• Question 2 – healthcare & schools 426
• Question 3 – about right 421
• Question 3 – Extend Existing Industrial Estate 4
• Question 3 – In or adjacent to Industrial Estate to the north of village. 5
• Question 3 – more details of proposal needed. 19
• Question 3 – existing Industrial Estate 20
• Question 3 – expand current Industrial Estates 23
• Question 3 – Maynard Industrial Estate 29
• Question 3 – South of A45 – White Mills area 37
• Question 3 – Industrial Estate 43
• Question 3 – on the edge of village to minimise more traffic into the centre of village 53
• Question 3 – periphery of village 60
• Question 3 – or within exiting industrial estate area 64
• Question 3 – in or near existing industrial area 65
• Question 3 – Industrial Estate 71
• Question 3 – on outskirts of the town 91
• Question 3 – on the Industrial Estate 92
• Question 3 – all commercial development to be on the Industrial Estate close to the A4500 95
• Question 3 – Business Parks 108
• Question 3 – existing Industrial development 127
• Question 3 – near the Industrial Estate 139
• Question 3 – Industrial Estate 141
• Question 3 – on the Industrial Estate 142
• Question 3 – outskirts of village 143
• Question 3 – on the existing industrial estate if possible 154
• Question 3 – existing Industrial Estate 157
• Question 3 – away centre.  Industrial area is what’s for. 162
• Question 3 – Ind Est, W/boro Rd 165
• Question 3 – Industrial estate 182
• Question 3 – use facilities on present Ind Estate 187
• Question 3 – should be more than just office space – retail space also 188
• Question 3 – Titley Bawk 195
• Question 3 – keep it close to existing industrial estate 203
• Question 3 – this is already under utilised at the Industrial Estate.  I agree with more/better local shops 209
• Question 3 – Industrial Estate 210
• Question 3 – why can’t this be accommodated in the exiting industrial area 212
• Question 3 – But on the plans aren’t they going to have shops at the development 214
• Question 3 – current Industrial Estate or village centre 222
• Question 3 – adjacent to existing employment area 231
• Question 3 – no growth 248
• Question 3 – within existing industrial area – ie Mallard Close area? 270
• Question 3 – with main development or north of A4500 or Titley Bawk Avenue 274
• Question 3 – on existing or new employment area 275
• Question 3 – existing industrial centre 282
• Question 3 – up on the industrial site 293
• Question 3 – on the Industrial Estate 295
• Question 3 – near main access roads 301
• Question 3 – must involve (part of?) Barkers site 307
• Question 3 – industrial area Baron Avenue 309
• Question 3 – Industrial Estate 317
• Question 3 – enough small business already 326
• Question 3 – outskirts of village, away from residential.  Easy access from A45 330
• Question 3 – on, or adjacent to, the Industrial Estate 334
• Question 3 – Industrial Estate or Barkers 335
• Question 3 – I consider there is more than sufficient space within the village 336
• Question 3 – these offices should be in the main towns 337
• Question 3 – there is still space at the back of Industrial Estate 340
• Question 3 – on the Industrial Estate 347
• Question 3 – Barkers canteen & unused land on that site 352
• Question 3 – located near the Industrial units for easy transport access 360
• Question 3 – I feel that there are enough business premises not currently used which could accommodate this 375
• Question 3 – sufficient business centres 376
• Question 3 – or Mallard Close area 378
• Question 3 – Industrial Estate 394
• Question 3 – to use the empty units on Mallard Close 395
• Question 3 – on outskirts or just outside Earls Barton 396
• Question 3 – extend existing on north of village 398
• Question 3 – Earls Barton already has an Industrial Estate that is not fully utilised.  Any development should first utilise current area 404
• Question 3 – both locations if possible 407
• Question 3 – anywhere 410
• Question 3 – utilise empty buildings/land on current Industrial Estate 416
• Question 3 – existing employment area to be used for offices/storage & other non-retail 418
• Question 3 – north of village – Northampton or Wellingborough Rd 419
• Question 3 – Industrial area – plenty of room there 421
• Question 3- lets try and keep a village environment 422
• Question 3 – outside village 423
• Question 4 – located east of the village, and certainly not on a residential development 339
• Question 4 – only if we have to have any at all 11
• Question 4 – large family homes 139
• Question 4 – no more than 60dph 167
• Question 4 – none 193
• Question 4 – although do not agree with 280 houses 207
• Question 4 – with proper consideration to number of vehicles per property 208
• Question 4 – You mean what housing is required?  Don’t know. 209
• Question 4 – low or none 259
• Question 4 – low to medium depending on housing type – not explained below what these numbers represent – ie low-med-high.  Found difficult to answer as would depend on type of housing as to how many dph 282
• Question 4 – none 286
• Question 4 – less than low 336
• Question 4 – none 337
• Question 4 – medium, but not north of the village 339
• Question 4 – ? 250 max 346
• Question 4 – my choice of housing density is based upon a need to support 250 additional dwellings in the whole village development within current boundaries and the Grange site 353
• Question 4 – no development at all 355
• Question 4 – this is difficult to understand.  Must be a mixture of housing types with enough open space – like a mini village 421
• Question 5 – not sure that we need one. 16
• Question 5 – central to help support village services such as pubs/restaurants 17
• Question 5 – more details of community hall ie what would it be used for? Required 19
• Question 5 – Grange site well suited 20
• Question 5 – make it a diverse sports facility not predominately football 21
• Question 5 – Maynard Industrial Estate 29
• Question 5 – no better 32
• Question 5 – nowhere else of the right size 42
• Question 5 – Grange is too far out of the village 53
• Question 5 – would be better in village centre 55
• Question 5 – too much development.  Village will lose id. 57
• Question 5 – centre of village 60
• Question 5 – closer to the village centre if possible 64
• Question 5 – Barkers Canteen 71
• Question 5 – only with better access/parking 78
• Question 5 – too remote – needs to be in village centre 82
• Question 5 – has to be in village centre – Barkers? 86
• Question 5 – don’t need a comm hall.  We have church hall, 2 band clubs & The Grange 89
• Question 5 – no better site 90
• Question 5 – site too big 98
• Question 5 – Barkers derelict buildings 100
• Question 5 – Barkers old canteen – move Tennis & Bowls to new sport centre 104
• Question 5 – providing parking is available 105
• Question 5 – could be more central 108
• Question 5 – Pioneer 109
• Question 5 – Barkers Canteen could be “brought back to life” 118
• Question 5 – redesign, modernise the bowls/tennis club 139
• Question 5 – Grange site 141
• Question 5 – although more central would be better ie the old Barkers Canteen. 147
• Question 5 – no other options available. 151
• Question 5 – how about existing community/church hall? 162
• Question 5 – village centre 164
• Question 5 – yes, unless Barkers Canteen available 167
• Question 5 – redevelop derelict Barkers building in Station Rd 176
• Question 5 – Derelict property that fronts Barkers Shoes site 177
• Question 5 – renovate Barkers Canteen/more central 178
• Question 5 – current Youth Club site – more central 182
• Question 5 – Pioneer Sports Field 195
• Question 5 – old canteen building, Barkers Shoes premises 206
• Question 5 – further develop all viable rooms currently available within village centre 207
• Question 5 – Is this need?   Or should we have better use of what we have & improve them? 209
• Question 5 – would be better in the centre of the village so can be accessed on foot for all areas – eg Barkers site ideal 210
• Question 5 – central to village – not at the furthest point away from it 211
• Question 5 – Barkers Canteen if not used for additional parking 213
• Question 5 – wouldn’t that be where the changing rooms are for the football & cricket? 214
• Question 5 – existing recreation ground 230
• Question 5 – we have church halls & a youth club hall already 233
• Question 5 – closer to centre of village 240
• Question 5 – providing plenty of parking available 241
• Question 5 – yes improve village hall 259
• Question 5 – the old Barkers Canteen 263
• Question 5 – if people need it that much plenty in Wellingborough 266
• Question 5 – Grange for Sports/Leisure fine.  Community facility would be better centrally 268
• Question 5 – dance studio land 271
• Question 5 – so long as well controlled on lateness of times used & noise 282
• Question 5 – needs to be more central 286
• Question 5 – needs parking wherever situated 295
• Question 5 – Barkers – side of site (canteen & disused buildings) 307
• Question 5 – village centre – site of existing schools 314
• Question 5 – village centre – to serve whole of the community 318
• Question 5 – no 320
• Question 5 – what will happen to the current village hall 323
• Question 5 – Barkers old canteen – apparently left to the village; in centre, has car parking 330
• Question 5 – Barkers Canteen building 331
• Question 5 – would be preferable near village centre 334
• Question 5 – Barkers site.  The Grange is inappropriate 335
• Question 5 – as there are facilities already in place this would seem appropriate 336
• Question 5 – I have lived in EB for 30-40 years.  All this time The Grange was going to be a sports complex.  Why now? 337
• Question 5 – redevelop existing youth club a possibility?  But parking issues 338
• Question 5 – it should be more central to the village & within walking distance of most residents (note, residents do walk for xmas carols).  Built on the periphery would involve considerable parking problems 339
• Question 5 – extend youth club in Rec to incorporate community centre – Grange too far from centre 341
• Question 5 – on the Barkers factory site, with Barkers moving up to the Industrial area.  You could also provide extra parking & even a few houses 347
• Question 5 – more central in village, but I do not know of any specific sites 349
• Question 5 – needs to be in village centre 352
• Question 5 – should be left as it is 355
• Question 5 – near the library 356
• Question 5 – nearer to the village centre for all to use, otherwise there will be a loss of community spirit.  A community hall on the Grange site may just alienate those in housing there by just being used by them.  Better integration would be achieved with a more central site or improving existing facilities 360
• Question 5 – closer to centre – any brownfield development within boundaries should be reserved for community/small business as a priority 374
• Question 5 – there are a number of church halls & the old Barkers canteen which can accommodate this 375
• Question 5 – could the building (dance school?) be used more for the general public? 392
• Question 5 – other side of Northampton Rd? 396
• Question 5 – use this site for new school/community hall 411
• Question 5 – no we already have a hall 415
• Question 5 – too far away from centre 417
• Question 5 – there may be – it needs looking into carefully 421
• Question 5 – possibly the rundown building at Barkers? 425
• Question 6 – make it two storey 389
• Question 6 – should be in village centre perhaps derelict canteen 243
• Question 6 – yes providing proper parking facilities are made 3
• Question 6 – not unless parking is improved 37
• Question 6 – unclear where 42
• Question 6 – no big enough/lack of parking for new businesses 53
• Question 6 – danger of becoming town 57
• Question 6 – but only if parking issue is resolved 77
• Question 6 – for business NO for services YES 90
• Question 6 – only small retail units 95
• Question 6 – should not proceed unless parking is improved in the village centre & to encourage cycling an area for bicycle racks should be provided in the centre. 119
• Question 6 – Does this mean converting residential to business? 176
• Question 6 – yes, subject to accessibility & parking 177
• Question 6 – no more takeaways please 218
• Question 6 – new school 223
• Question 6 –yes, if in existing properties 239
• Question 6 – car parking is vital 260
• Question 6 – not for current housing to be converted to business 282
• Question 6 – in some cases 335
• Question 6 – The businesses already there are sufficient for a village – this is not a town 336
• Question 6 – no 337
• Question 6 – could use of Barkers house parking be made use of on West St?  Do businesses in centre suffer due to lack of parking spaces 338
• Question 6 – no room 346
• Question 6 – generate more parking & traffic 378
• Question 6 – depends – housing shouldn’t be turned to offices 381
• Question 6 – as long as parking is within the business area 385
• Question 6 – plenty of existing shops/Building Society etc 398
• Question 6 – any development of businesses/shop should be for all community as we now have no DIY or electrical shop & health & beauty seem to take over 404
• Question 6 – where? 412
• Question 6 – by “properties” do you mean homes/houses??  I thought we were short of homes.  I think the village has enough shops etc…  One services that could use a building would be the library merging with the schools to make better use of that whole area (including car park) & creating true Community Schools incorporating the Library & making more school places 421
• Question 6 – shops 428
• Question 7 – Time limit in centre roads 3
• Question 7 – 2hr restriction in main roads 5
• Question 7 – 2 hour limit 6
• Question 7 – Limit parking keeping Station Road clear. 12
• Question 7 – time restricted parking 16
• Question 7 – no parking on main road in village centre. 18
• Question 7 – limited periods on all village centre parking – 1hr 19
• Question 7 – restricted parking/shared facilities 20
• Question 7 – But people still refuse to walk 22
• Question 7 – traffic calming 25
• Question 7 – no sites available 26
• Question 7 – needs to be practicable & not subject to clamping services! 28
• Question 7 – more double yellow lines 29
• Question 7 – None as enforcement would be ineffective, when did you last see a policeman? 31
• Question 7 – Reinforce what double yellow lines mean 35
• Question 7 – limited time parking for shoppers, permit parking for residents 37
• Question 7 – 2 hour parking on The Square & roads 39
• Question 7 – 2 hour limit AND enforced 41
• Question 7 – waiting restriction 3 hours max 42
• Question 7 – wardens in centre 45
• Question 7 – limited time parking 47
• Question 7 – traffic wardens at school 50
• Question 7 – Station Rd 51
• Question 7 – none – not appropriate but don’t know where they would be located 53
• Question 7 – separate parking area for shop staff 55
• Question 7 – no parking on roads that are on bus routes 60
• Question 7 – care should be taken that any parking controls introduced in the centre of the village do NOT penalise residents of properties in those areas, forcing them to seek parking elsewhere, therefore solving one problem by causing others. 65
• Question 7 – time limited parking 66
• Question 7 – controlled near school 67
• Question 7 – traffic wardens/double yellow lines 68
• Question 7 – waiting restrictions 71
• Question 7 – around school restrictions 72
• Question 7 – easy, short stay (10min) pick up/drop off parking – schools, chippy, post office 73
• Question 7 – complete restriction in West St 76
• Question 7 – don’t see any – all present parking largely necessary 79
• Question 7 – speed bumps on Station Rd 86
• Question 7 – double yellow lines on West Street 87
• Question 7 – parking is only an issue at school drop off/pick up times.  As most of the kids at the school are from the village, why do they need parking? 89
• Question 7 – limited parking in some areas 92
• Question 7 – 3 hr time limit on centre parking.  Rigid enforcement on footpath parking. 95
• Question 7 – these days people tend to be rather lazy, meaning I doubt they will walk from the Grange site to the school.  So, parking near/for school should be a priority to ensure safety! 97
• Question 7 – time restrictions near centre 100
• Question 7 – better parking for bowls/tennis club 101
• Question 7 – I am concerned regarding lack of parking control adjacent to the Indian Take-away to the right of the access to Bowlers Yard.  Drivers cannot see approaching vehicles down High St. 107
• Question 7 – Restrictions.  Enforcement of parking. 108
• Question 7 – Restrictions on main village roads 110
• Question 7 – keeping traffic out of centre 118
• Question 7 – Bowls & Tennis club need parking rather than on streets. 120
• Question 7 – yes, if space could be found. 123
• Question 7 – 3 hour parking – I think there needs to be 3 hour parking in the centre of the village.  2 hours is not enough time for a hairdo & shopping. 125
• Question 7 – none 128
• Question 7 – no parking 7am-7pm top of Station Rd & in West St. 134
• Question 7 – parking time limits – parking – village centre – restrictions. 141
• Question 7 – residents permits & restricted time. 142
• Question 7 – Barkers West St entrance – apply to Barkers for use of land in West St as parking even pay & display 144
• Question 7 – Bowlers Yard good site. 147
• Question 7 – limited time slots 151
• Question 7 – restrictions on length of time to park.  153
• Question 7 – prevent parking on pavements 154
• Question 7 – 2 hr limit on Square.  Rigid enforcement of existing double yellow line restrictions in upper part of Station Rd. 156
• Question 7 – Where? 159
• Question 7 – speed bumps. 161
• Question 7 – none 162
• Question 7 – priority 163
• Question 7 – none 164
• Question 7 – pay to park 8-6 165
• Question 7 – max 2 hr stay 166
• Question 7 – short term wait green area 167
• Question 7 – Employees of business parking away from centre 176
• Question 7 – anything to help stop congestion 178
• Question 7 – timed stay parking 186
• Question 7 – no parking at all in village centre – except for existing provision in The Square 189
• Question 7 – yellow lines – max parking times 190
• Question 7 – revist the Barkers car parking option 194
• Question 7 – Parking Meters 195
• Question 7 – Parking Meters 196
• Question 7 – around the school area 198
• Question 7 – away from centre – people can walk! 202
• Question 7 – time limits on parking in Square & adjoining roads 203
• Question 7 – we need to ensure that any village centre parking is not used by commercial vehicles parked overnight & weekends away from drivers own property 205
• Question 7 – funding could be sought from other agencies 207
• Question 7 – 30 minutes limited 208
• Question 7 – bus should be encouraging no cars if poss 209
• Question 7 – 3 hour waiting in some central areas – more control of parking on existing double yellow lines 210
• Question 7 – no all day parking 211
• Question 7 – speed bumps or similar, restricted parking along Station Rd & Broad St 212
• Question 7 – limited parking up to 3 hours 213
• Question 7 – 2hr max 217
• Question 7 – adequate parking within housing developments 218
• Question 7 – depends on location 219
• Question 7 – traffic warden for double yellow line enforcement 221
• Question 7 – double yellow lines outside Boot pub 227
• Question 7 – timed & more disabled parking 228
• Question 7 – reserved parking for residents 233
• Question 7 – traffic calming measures 234
• Question 7 – more disabled parking 236
• Question 7 – must be off road if new spaces 239
• Question 7 – traffic calming.  Traffic calming or roundabout on Square 243
• Question 7 – on the outskirts of the village 252
• Question 7 – none/no 2hr restrictions – awful idea 259
• Question 7 – limited time parking 260
• Question 7 – time limit 265
• Question 7 – more disabled spaces.  Pay for centre of village areas.  No drop off/pick up within 100m of schools 268
• Question 7 – 1 hour max in The Square car park 272
• Question 7 – Barkers ground 273
• Question 7 – bus where on earth is there? 282
• Question 7 – hour limit restrictions 284
• Question 7 – no parking in village centre 286
• Question 7 – time limited parking 295
• Question 7 – extend double yellow lines in West St 298
• Question 7 – sleeping policemen to reduce speed of cars especially if more cars in village centre! 305
• Question 7 – absolutely none 306
• Question 7 – Station Rd won’t work even with only the housing agreed already 307
• Question 7 – 2 hour limit in centre 309
• Question 7 – lollipop ladies reinstated 315
• Question 7 – short stay – max 2 hr stay 318
• Question 7 – if spread out 319
• Question 7 – policing existing parking better 320
• Question 7 – stop parking on pavement 321
• Question 7 – enforcement of parking controls 325
• Question 7 – timed parking 327
• Question 7 – essential 329
• Question 7 – maximum 3 hrs parking on Square 330
• Question 7 – limited parking except for residents 331
• Question 7 – Enforcement of existing controls 334
• Question 7 – current proposals insufficiently considered 335
• Question 7 – Parking for a village is adequate.  Even if there was a car park (say Barkers) people would not use it 336
• Question 7 – none – parking is not policed now 337
• Question 7 – walking should be encouraged.  Impose “yellow line restrictions”, “short term parking” & metering if necessary 339
• Question 7 – one way system of parking in New Barton, ie King, Victoria, Queen, Prince St area 340
• Question 7 – limited parking 341
• Question 7 – there is nowhere for additional parking is there! 342
• Question 7 – enforceable waiting restrictions on Churchill Rd during school drop off/pick up times 343
• Question 7 – time limit – eg 2-3 hours
• Question 7 – restricted parking village centre 350
• Question 7 – 20mph speed limit 353
• Question 7 – limited time parking 354
• Question 7 – free parking 356
• Question 7 – parking limited to 2 hours 365
• Question 7 – short term parking 371
• Question 7 – double yellow lines 372
• Question 7 – restrictions on “ugly” transits & lorries – especially parking in village 374
• Question 7 – no return within 1 hour restrictions 375
• Question 7 – stop commercial vehicles (vans) parking on streets 377
• Question 7 – no parking in the centre 379
• Question 7 – max 2 hrs/short stay bays 380
• Question 7 – limit time – to 1-2 hours so people working all day have to park away from the centre! 381
• Question 7 – time restricted parking bays 382
• Question 7 – can’t see where parking space is available 385
• Question 7 – 1 hour wait & controlled 389
• Question 7 – blue badge places please 390
• Question 7 – time limit parking – eg ½ hour 398
• Question 7 – limited time parking within The Square 399
• Question 7 – 20mph zone at Square & Broad Street – as mentioned 20mph zone on Square & Broad Street – ie with crossing & school – other calming measures if necessary 401
• Question 7 – time limit parking 403
• Question 7 – if parking can be provided maybe north car park of Barkers.  Then double yellow lines on all road areas especially West St & High St 404
• Question 7 – not meters or pay for parking 407
• Question 7 – none 410
• Question 7 – old school site parking – 1 hour free 411
• Question 7 – more short term parking but where? 412
• Question 7 – bike racks 413
• Question 7 – anything that does not involve on-street parking! 416
• Question 7 – 2 hour on Square 417
• Question 7 – 2 hour max stay in central area 418
• Question 7 – limited time parking 419
• Question 7 – limited parking 420
• Question 7 – we need a car park for visitors to the village as we have many visitors & they take up the space for villagers to use if necessary.  There should be more disabled parking on The Square & able bodied people should be encouraged to walk/cycle 421
• Question 7 – max time limits for parking 422
• Question 7 – 1 hour waiting on all roads 423
• Question 7 – 1 hour free – no return in 1 hour 425
• Question 7 – max 2 hour parking 427
• Question 7 – traffic lights – to ease congestion, traffic control will be required ie lights, roundabouts, etc  428
• Question 8 – yes, lots more please 16
• Question 8 – providing they are safe & user friendly 28
• Question 8 – and bike racks in centre 42
• Question 8 – there is no space for cycle racks & pedestrian improvements should not be at the cost of losing through traffic routes. 53
• Question 8 – cycle routes & pedestrian safety! 151
• Question 8 – but more bus shelters & seats in village especially along Doddington Rd 180
• Question 8 – who walks that far these days?  Certainly not younger people 211
• Question 8 – What the pedestrian and cycle routes there 214
• Question 8 – cycle routes rarely get used 233
• Question 8 – include access for mobility scooters 287
• Question 8 – strongly 307
• Question 8 – pedestrian & cycle routes are essential & must be separate from vehicle routes – for safety & to encourage people to use them without fear of traffic.  They need to be of quality (tarmac) construction & maintenance costs should be inbuilt for the future 318
• Question 8 – no motorised access to existing village roads 320
• Question 8 – this would appear to be impractical as the roads are not wide enough 336
• Question 8 – Improve pedestrian routes & public right of ways.  We do not currently have any cycle routes; these should start from the centre of the village linking existing areas first.  Any new housing development could then latch on.  Bearing in mind that you cannot park on a cycle route would deter parking centrally 339
• Question 8 – stop parking on footpaths so that we can use them 341
• Question 8 – should be left as it is 355
• Question 8 – our paths are not wide enough for bikes 358
• There needs to be stricter reinforcement on parking on the double yellow lines at the top of Station Road.  All the planning proposed on the south side of EB will cause too much traffic congestion and make it difficult for emergency vehicles to gain access if allowed to go ahead. 1
• If infill development is partly used for housing the numbers of housing in the northern development could be reduced from 250 to maybe around 200 & still meet Earls Barton’s required quota of new houses. 5
• Longer term parking facilities for shop/service staff. 5
• We purchased property in the village to get away from the crowds.  The only business that will proper from additional housing are the fast food outlets contributing to our litter problem. 9
• Don’t want any new development.  We already have enough houses.  It wouldn’t be a village anymore. 11
• As long as there are improvements at the schools and medical facilities to cope with the increased population. 12
• I do not support any housing growth unless the local school is to be expanded to accommodate.  The children in the Infant School are already in mixed age classes due to over-subscription and any new development will further pressure on the local school as it stands. 14
• We have a lot of larger homes & large semis already.  We need starter homes/flats with dedicated parking for first time buyers/single people that are cheaper/affordable. 16
• 250 houses is too large and concentrate more traffic from one direction.  With 62% voting against the northern development the village have not given a majority backing to the development.  Make any development part of the village not as far out as possible, embrace more traffic with positive development to encourage a vibrant village centre. 17
• Well done.  Looking real.  Community Centre could incorporate Library and school hall.  In Library/field location (village centre) 19
• Cycle route from Earls Barton to Billing to connect with existing Northampton cycleway should be provided – adjacent to A45 20
• Parking, roads & infrastructure should be one of the key focuses.  Parking is a huge problem & roads are very busy. 21
• Any new developments must incorporate affordable housing & be for those with village connections.  We must not become a suburb! 28
• Need to protect the Library in the centre of the village. 29
• Need to invest in secure & dedicated property for the Saxon Pre-school 29
• Need to consider the impact on the Infant & Junior Schools, no greenspace to exercise & play. 29
• Need to compulsory purchase some Barkers Shoes properties, they cannot just sell to developers!! 29
• The schools will need to expand & I am not sure how & where. 30
• No mention is made about schooling needs – education of local children is a priority.  Year classes are already mixed.  31
• No new buildings needed.  The village is already over populated! 33
• Where will the children from any development go to school – Earls Barton Infant & Junior Schools are full! 34
• Dustbin collections – more thought to be given especially the long gap from Oct-March – No brown bins emptied at all? 35
• I would like to see school related issues addressed. 38
• Any planning consents should contain conditions that agreed village amenities should be provided before house building commences. 39
• A new primary school away from the present site.  More shops & parking could then replace the schools. 41
• We hope the Neighbourhood Plan will have some impact on the future of our community.  The Government has created chaos! 42
• First time buyers from the village should be a priority!!! 43
• This country needs housing including flats/apartments.  No more prevarication, push this through now. 47
• Houses for all ages at right price.  New school for all the new children. 50
• Earls Barton does not have the space/land to have massive development.  The school needs enlarging.  It needs new Drs surgery & improved parking for the existing population before even planning major expansion can be thought about.  Much more thought/info required! 53
• A cycle link to Northampton & to Wellingborough would encourage use of bikes. 55
• I feel this is a no win situation.  The village will be overwhelmed whatever happens. 57
• Better parking is required in the village centre before all the businesses die!  With the increase in housing the school needs urgent attention.  The zebra crossing is dangerous, motorists ignore it!!  An accident waiting to happen. 58
• If the village is still to remain a village, then surely, with the increase of 250 dwellings (that could mean an increase of approx 500-750 people) who, will certainly & most definitely need a doctor or some sort of healthcare.  As most families have not got a care and need healthcare on their doorstep. 59
• Earls Barton is in no way in a position to take any major development. If any car parking can be found (good) 62
• I strongly believe that before any developments take place, hospitals, schools, doctors, roads, etc should be the number one priority.  As you well know, all of the above are struggling to cope. 63
• There is a need for a balanced approach to parking.  Blanket restrictions will adversely affect shops which we need; but require less congestion on main exit routes. 64
• Main concern is parking around the school which restricts access to Churchill Road – it is presenting dangerous & school development won’t help. 67
• I object strongly to the proposed houses to be built in Thorpe Rd.  Also the 280 along Dowthorpe Hill & beyond. 68
• New 4-11 primary school with existing site used as a mix of community facilities/small business & housing. 70
• The effort for this planning is well worth it if it sends a substansive message to planners & is not side stepped by developers making their own plans for the village – ie; Redrow – Station Rd!! 73
• Any future development would be best addressed on former industrial land within the village. 76
• Ideally a completely new school is required and then maybe the present site could be used for community use or parking. 82
• Any speculative development south of The Square will certainly not be supported by this family. 86
• No development in Station Rd due to serious traffic problems 87
• Additional housing needs to be provided where the road network can be accessed easily without impeding on the village centre. 93
• All responsible communities should make plans for traffic controls & give priority to cyclists & pedestrians. 94
• I accept that we have to have houses built here, but the traffic we will get with it worries me. 96
• Refuse planning application WP/2013/0401/CA – The Old Butchers Yard.  Parish Council purchase with the development money for CAR PARK 98
• Concern about how the current provision of school places could be increased to meet need. 99
• Concern regarding all proposed development is mainly regarding roads able to take additional traffic, schools & medical facilities. 105
• We only agree with development at “The Grange” not “infill” development. 106
• Create a link road from Whites Nursery roundabout into south of village.  This should be a must if any development happens in south to stop traffic in Station Rd. 106
• Improved infrastructure/facilities crucial to these developments. 110
• A bigger community hall that can accommodate functions etc. 120
• Earls Barton cannot take all this development.  It is already a large village.  Do we want to become a town? 123
• Don’t let this village outgrown itself.  It ruins them.  I moved away from one after living there over 50 years. 126
• Really I wonder if infrastructure especially schools can support any development beyond infill. 127
• I think there should be a new Recreation Ground on the new development and build a car park on the old one.  It would solve a lot of problems (ie parking) 135
• I feel that a new site for schools would need to be found as this would reduce traffic around the village centre. 138
• There is a need for larger 4/5 bed family homes, not starter homes. 139
• Still concerns about health services & how the school will be affected. 142
• We are a village not a town.  Stay that way! 146
• 250 new dwellings is far too high.  The village would no longer be a village! 147
• Trying to park in the centre now is ridiculous – that needs sorting before 250 houses are built.  The village can’t cope. 149
• The priority for Earls Barton has to be the effect of additional housing on the EB infrastructure.  The majority of people live here for the “village atmosphere”.  It would be disappointing to lose it. 151
• The village must grow as the local people want it to not as an outsider wishes to make money and leave it up to us to sort out.  BCW seem to have the attitude NIMBY.  This Neighbourhood Plan isthe best way forward. 152
• This option appears to be an acceptable compromise – we have got to have a new housing & it’s good to try & take control. 153
• Maybe extra parking could be located on the Barkers factory site if all parties agreeable. 154
• Any major development that does not include meeting point (question) 5 above is unacceptable. 155
• It makes sense to confine most of the new housing close to existing trunk roads keeping the village free of passing traffic. 157
• It is gridlocked now at school in/out times.  Where are all these additional people going to send their children to school?  Here!!  Where are they going to park – we need a new school!!  Not a sports field! 159
• I would like no vehicular access to the new development other than from A4500.  Thus no traffic problems in village.  Raisable bollards could be installed to let emergency services through from village. 160
• None of these mention impact on school in village 165
• A multi-storey car park or underground car park is a very high priority near the village centre, maybe under Mound in Rec. 171
• Preserve/reuse old buildings to keep character of area 178
• Earls Barton is supposed to be a village location not a town! 179
• Build new school on edge of village where new houses are going to be, plus knock down old school & make into car park, Community Centre or bungalows for retirement pensioners 180
• This village is massively over congested already.  I do not support any housing development in Earls Barton. 184
• The village is a village and should remain so.  More housing would stretch all factors of village life 185
• The neglect of the building (stone) on High St & the upper floors of the corner shop – spoiling the village – should be addressed along with the overall plan 186
• Improved public transport to Wellingborough railway station is a must 188
• The traffic flow in this village is causing nothing but misery for the local people 195
• We would like to keep our village not make it a town 196
• Question 1 contradicts question 8 – the village centre cannot cope with more vehicles.  Any new builds should be inkeeping with the village – decent front/back gardens – driveway – gaps between buildings 197
• Lack of banking facilities & cashpoints will be a bigger problem with more people – 1 cashpoint in village is inadequate 198
• Cycle routes/paths need to keep cycles off the footpaths.  Make it safe for all by having designated cycle paths/lanes 199
• Traffic calming measures on all roads that go through village 202
• 250 dwellings over 20 years – not all in one go in one location.  There should be plenty of opportunity to meet this total over the next few years by developing the infill sites throughout the village.  The loss of arable land is a travesty and should not be allowed to happen 207
• Most families have 2 or more vehicles – new housing even flats or 1 beds needs to provide parking spaces 208
• Local shops should be improved & would in turn be used along with other local shops in place eg – if we had a grocers I could get veg & then use the butchers 209
• I am in support of the proposals in general although I feel any development should be strictly limited to 250 dwellings (not 280!) and include a good mix including bungalows for private sale (not just social housing).  Sports facilities should not just be football/cricket – needs mix of other sports eg netball, hockey, tennis, etc.  Outdoor gym would also be good.  Current proposals are mailing for men/boys and even then only those interested in joining a club – needs more open access if a Parish Council facility, eg – public tennis court paid for by the hour like at Bozeat. 210
• Why don’t you want Redrow?  You don’t get a free sports development do you?  The only reason this “Grange” development is going on is to get free sports facilities at the cost to people who have lived quietly here for years – we don’t have a choice – like it or not eh? 211
• If we need to have 250 houses over the next 20 years why can’t we spread it around the village using the land in the middle of the village and work out when is a village not a village? 214
• Any infill development must include adequate parking ie 2/3 spaces per household 218
• I believe the village needs a variety of shops to prosper but until the parking issues can be resolved in The Square area of the village no progress will ever come.  If you cannot park you cannot shop! 221
• Support Option 2 as best option 222
• Parking is a priority – village is strangled by cars parked everywhere & more houses will only mean more cars 227
• I would support the building of a new primary school on the northern site of the village to accommodate rising numbers.  The present buildings are full to capacity & pupil numbers are an ideal size for 5-11 year olds 228
• We had a car park on Broad St.  Now houses, local business sites (Bowlers Yard) soon to be housing 233
• Keep it as a village! 235
• My main concern is the lack at present of school facilities & also the parking problem 236
• We feel this is the best of the 3 alternative sites but are concerned that development will overload facilities 238
• Please plant trees within & on the edge of any development 239
• I think that the proposed site would not integrate into the village – they would use the main road & shop in Wellingborough or Weston Favell rather than drive down into the village & use those facilities.  I also believe that it would add to the existing traffic congestion at school times 240
• We support no development to our village 242
• There is a real need for affordable housing.  There appears to be little mention of enhancing/promoting the existing Industrial Estate which is in decline 243
• Seems a pity Neighbourhood Plan is still not in place allowing builders almost freedom to build anywhere 248
• Clarification of “access to main roads” would be useful.  What is meant by “main roads”?  Rather generic 250
• Chris Heaton-Harris in a letter to me mentioned in an appendage that Regional Space Strategies (RSS) has been abolished meaning that it should be possible for a land bank of six years to be established making it more difficult for developers making speculative applications 252
• As a resident of Mears Ashby Rd I have no problem with the proposed Neighbourhood Plan 255
• As a resident of Mears Ashby Rd I have no problem with the proposed Neighbourhood Plan 256
• Please keep future development off Station Rd 257
• As there are at present many planning applications being sought, could the Borough Council look at all of them together rather than piece meal 258
• It is a poor state of affairs when home building/developers are forcing their ideas on us & we are asked to vote for the lesser evil! 259
• Car parking for schools & shops essential 265
• Parking is a problem in the village but I am sure it will get a lot worse if any of these developments go ahead which I am sure they will.  Does not matter what anyone objects to 266
• Far too much planning off/around Station Rd.  Traffic would be intolerable 267
• I suspect nothing will be “taken into consideration”! 269
• Brownfield sites should be used for elderly accommodation – ie bungalows so they are closest to amenities in village centre. 270
• A good idea to include the community hall & sporting facilities to dispel any notion of a “North Barton Ghetto” 274
• Development to the south of the village would not work as the increased traffic could not be connected directly to major traffic routes 281
• For council and MP to do all they can to resist expansion on southern side (Station Rd & areas east, west & south of it). 282
• Centre of the village to be secured as is as far as possible.  New school incorporating both under one head.  Reinforce development of new smaller shops in existing premises where possible to increase use by residents.  Bus & cycle ways to every area 288
• People have a village premium on buying property here from choice. Overdevelopment it ceases to be a village 292
• We have a very good quality of life here in Earls Barton, don’t think the development will do anything to make it any better 294
• No more developments to the south of the village 297
• More village centre parking needed eg at Butchers Yard.  Should also be more restrictions on road side parking 299
• Concern re how more traffic will impact village 305
• If you charge for parking you will kill trade in the village – look at Northampton – anti car = anti trade 306
• Any proposals must include provision for a new school.  I’m a governor at EBJS.  The current site cannot support much expansion – certainly not 250 new homes.  Suggest look at selling Infant School site, move Infants into EBJS site, build new Junior School 307
• An option to provide additional food shop within the new development should be considered.  This would contribute to the risk of traffic congestion in the village centre 311
• Proposed large development requires holistic approach to plan – appreciate schools are NCC area but new school would leave land for commercial/retail use in centre & car parking 314
• If this is an alternative to the Redrow development in Station Rd, with the support to parking, businesses & school, this is a good compromise 317
• If Redrow goes ahead I wouldn’t want any further development at all 319
• Road calming/speed bumps needed eg Dowthorpe Hill & similar roads 319
• If Barton became size of Stony Stratford it needs a High St like Stony Stratford/Olney! 319
• The development must contribute to developing costs for additional facilities required due to developments ie schooling, parking, access to major roads 320
• There is a shortage of parking & facilities in the village before the extra building – this must be addressed in the light of future expansion 321
• I think that development of Earls Barton is really important but for this to be successful, parking must be improved – more provided 322
• I do not have enough knowledge to put any other comments & therefore go with the majority 324
• There needs to be a huge improvement in parking.  At present Station Rd is almost impassable, especially at the weekend.  I doubt that a fire engine could get though! 325
• Having been involved with the local football team at youth level for a number of years it distresses me when all the hard work that certain members put in to securing The Grange for sport & community and not getting anywhere 326
• Need to resolve congestion in village centre before starting anything 329
• I think a lot of thought should be given before a historic ring of trees in the sports field be felled.  They are part of our heritage.  This would be scandalous 331
• Priority should be given to brown field sites & infrastructure improvement must proceed any significant development especially schooling 333
• This should be instead of, and not in addition to, developments to the south of the village 334
• This is a wide ranging document.  I support most of it in principle but much of it needs more thought & input.  Sports facilities are needed but will only benefit a few people & any community building must be in the current village centre 335
• Unfortunately the questions are framed for a specific response in favour of your plan but I have answered as best I can 336
• I came from east side of Northampton & have witnessed how development can ruin the environment.  A developer to earn a living has to keep on covering the countryside in concrete 337
• Growth will come – my main concerns are schooling & doctors & congestion in the village centre 340
• Plans for 400 houses means that EB will no longer be a village (if it still is).  Only housing needed is housing association property for the young people of EB to have somewhere they can afford 341
• I most support social housing, many young families stand no chance of being able to buy housing, especially as most are having to pay £500+ for robbing private landlords.  PLEASE, PLEASE help these young families have a decent reasonable priced rented home 342
• Enclosed is a copy of an email objecting to the Allebone Rd/Station Rd development proposal, which also supports the Neighbourhood Plan 345
• An extra school building (possibly an “annexe” to the existing schools) built within, or close to, the new development would be great help to reduce pressure on the schools & reduce traffic 349
• People in the village should be encouraged to walk into the village centre so why develop more car parking.  Disabled parking yes 351
• The plan provides a solution to new housing that brings benefits to the village.  Speculative development outside current boundaries does not.  Locals need housing but not at the expense of teh character of the village it amenities 354
• Why in Earls Barton?  What about Mears Ashby, Wilby, Gt Doddington? 356
• We feel it is vital that a large percentage of the housing is affordable to allow young people to live here.  We do not need anymore 4 bed houses.  The village already has plenty of these.  Single storey homes & bungalows would also be a good addition to allow more elderly & disabled people to live here.  We are very much in favour of the plans to develop sports & leisure facilities & hope that plenty of thought is given to a large indoor club/hall for community use.  Also, there has been no mention of an area being allocated for women’s sport such as netball.  We feel an outdoor netball court could also “double up” as a tennis court 357
• We do not want any additional housing off Station Rd/Dowthorpe Hill 359
• I’m certain I’ve spotted one or more of the following protected species surrounding our village: Badgers, dormice, natterjack toads & watervoles.  We must ensure they are not disturbed! 374
• Stop parking on pavements when there are drives available or park on road, police should control 377
• Relocate Fire Station to outskirts of village – car park available! Yellow lines in High St 378
• Create 20mph limit for whole village & traffic calming in some streets 379
• Bowls/Tennis club needs to find off road parking for its visitors.  Station Rd is at times impassable 380
• This plan needs to be done SOON otherwise developers will put houses wherever they can – eg Redrow Station Rd 381
• Developments must be away from the village centre & access directly onto main routes – traffic is a major problem 382
• Parking a definite priority & schools don’t seem to be a priority & will be needed for more families 385
• Support development, the village needs more houses 387
• The village roads are incapable of taking an increased load 388
• School, shops & post office, docs & other needs on new site 389
• We need to enable people with disability to live in village 390
• Development should be off main big roads – A4500/Northampton Rd, not Station Rd which is already at capacity with cars 396
• With 60+ houses off Thorpe Rd/Compton Way already agreed NO more to the south of village.  Access to Aggate Way to A45 from new houses would benefit all 398
• I welcome high quality, good design developments in any area of the village, even mine.  What offends me is poor design & quality eg Dowthorpe Hill – maybe newer developments would distract us away from that? 400
• I do not believe this is a fair questionnaire as although I am in full agreement that development should be on the outskirts of village, I am obviously against having new housing bordering my property but the questionnaire doe not as the question.  The northern development was always going to be chosen as it affects a lesser majority of the villagers, it was not a vote for the northern development but rather a vote against other development – an unfair vote 404
• I am not sure about parking in the village or more office space near or in the village.  Even more traffic?  Keep the centre safe for everyone 405
• I fully support this plan – it’s appropriate to the development needs & places strong consideration on the impacts of this development 406
• Improve bus routes through village 407
• Move the school to modernise & increase size plus better car access, use old site for central parking.  Move school into part of park behind church with 3 access roads 410
• New school could incorporate community hall, old school would free up space in village for parking & old people bungalows.  Further new housing could be on Northampton Rd between Drs surgery & roundabout 411
• If the village expands to this extent a new junior school would be needed plus more pre-school places.  More Doctors surgery space 412
• Option 2 is a sensible option & the Parish Council should be commended on this approach.  I hope this can be carried through 413
• There is far too much emphasis being made on football & the process of discussion with the developers has not been transparent & a sports development should not be about football.  The Parish Council have let the village down by developing links with one developer not looking at what can & should be provided 417
• Earls Barton is generally too hilly to facilitate cycling as a practical transport option 418
• Any additional development to the south of the village requires new access to the village from the A45 from Clay Lane or Station Rd 419
• Must be good quality, in keeping with village, yet affordable by young & older people.  Must be mixture of types of housing to create a true community 421
• Do not see how you can better the public transport service provided by Stagecoach.  It is very good 422
• I live on Station Rd which has cars parking on both sides mainly because of people using bowling green.  This causes big problems for all emergency services.  Why did Council stop people parking on grass verge?  This has now made road parking worse 423
• There are enough traffic routes in Earls Barton to be able to restrict traffic through the centre & create a “pedestrian first” environment 425
• When you have built all the houses, the following issues become important.  Schooling, healthcare, lack of shops, traffic, parking & Earls Barton will no longer be a village! 426