25th August – 15th September 2011
Number of dwellings in village (est)
A total of 39 people responded to this question with 92.3% of respondents stating that their main interest in the development of Stuntney was as a local resident.
A total of 83 suggestions were made on how the village could improve in the future:
A total of 37 people responded to this question, with 2 people choosing not to answer. The majority of respondents, 67.6%, thought that housing growth should not be allowed outside the development envelope on the edge of Stuntney. Of those that supported growth (32.4%), highest support was given to medium-large scale housing growth for a mix of private and affordable dwellings.
Q6. Housing development will continue to come forward on small sites within the village. However, schemes are currently limited to a maximum of 2 dwellings (taking account of the size of the village and local facilities). Do you think this approach should continue?
A total of 39 people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (71.8%) supported retention of the current policy to restrict housing schemes within the development envelope to a maximum of 2 dwellings. Approximately 26% of respondents disagreed with the current approach, whilst 2.6% were unsure.
Q7. Would you like to see more opportunities for small businesses in the village (e.g. offices, industrial units, workshops)?
A total of 39 people responded to this question. 23.1% of respondents agreed that they would like to see further opportunities for small businesses in the village whilst 74.4% of respondents disagreed with this suggestion and 2.6% were unsure.
Q8. Would you support a new village shop/farm shop?
A total of 39 people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (59%) agreed that they would support a new village shop/farm shop whilst 30.8% of respondents would not and 10.3% were unsure.
Q9. The development envelope marks the built up area of the village where development is normally allowed to take place. The area outside the development envelope is protected as open countryside. Which of the following approaches would you prefer?
A total of 39 people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (71.8%) stated their preferred approach would be to keep the development envelope, whilst 28.2% thought that the development envelope should be replaced with a policy that assesses each application on its merits.
Q10. The District Council can secure funds from developers to spend on improving local infrastructure and facilities. If new development comes forward in the village, what benefits would you like to see?
A total of 34 people responded to this question, with 5 choosing not to answer. Overall, the need for improvements to pedestrian/cycle routes (27 people) and improvements to social club/village hall (21 people) scored most highly.
Q11. For the priorities you have selected in Question 10 above, can you provide more detail on what these improvements should be and where they should be located?
A total of 27 people responded to this question, which raised infrastructure issues at the following locations:
· Need for a cycle/pedestrian route to Ely, off the A142 e.g. joining Sustrans route 11
· Village hall and car park relocated next to village playing field, possibly incorporating a shop
· New cycle path from Stewards Close to link up with the existing pathway along the river or improve the pathway from Quanea Junction to Ely as a cycleway
The following non site-specific comments were also received: need greater choice of school transport, need to identify site for a nature reserve/orchard, need an improved village hall or social club and new sports ground/open space.
Q12. Would you support the development of a new pedestrian/cycle link to Ely? Where possible this would be located away from the main road.
A total of 39 people responded to this question. The vast majority of respondents (94.9%) would support the development of a new pedestrian/cycle link to Ely.
Q13. Please use this space to make any other comments:
A total of 26 people provided a response to this question making the following comments: new housing should not cause detriment to existing properties, water and drainage issues, need for new housing should be met in Ely, Soham and Witchford, any development should be small-scale, would like enough people to support a shop, social club etc, reconsider southern bypass route south of the village along the railway line as this would benefit Stuntney, develop a community nature reserve/orchard, no change, Ely needs to be more accessible, village cannot support further development – transport issues, object to any change in development policy, village would benefit from local employment opportunities.
One additional submission was received from Andrew Pym on behalf of a client. This representation sought to promote a development of Seymour's Paddock on Lower Road. This scheme would accommodate 9 homes, with two pairs of cottages at the entrance and five detached houses behind. [No planning application has yet been submitted to the District Council].
Return to Index page