Draft Plan April 2014

At the Final Consultation meeting on 28th March 2014 the Group put forward what it feels are the main policies that need to be in the SMB Neighbourhood Plan.

St Mary Bourne Parish: Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2030

Our situation

St Mary Bourne Parish, which includes Stoke – effectively a village in its own right - plus the hamlets Egbury, Wadwick, Binley and the Wykes, has decided, by request of the Parish council, to establish a Neighbourhood Plan (“the Plan”) to provide a framework for the Parish’s development. The period covered by the Plan is intended to be up to 2030, while the main issues which the Plan addresses are housing and development of the Parish’s key facilities and amenities.

The Parish is mixed in nature, with a range of housing types from single bedroom flats, through 2-3 and 4 bedroom family houses, up to larger properties including farms. Its population tends to the middle-aged and older side, but it has a vibrant school-age group and over the last 30 years has attracted young families in successive waves. The inhabitants range from farmers to commuters, via those working locally or from home, and we have a number of active, entrepreneurial businesses, including 3-4 pubs (one currently closed), a shop, two garages, a nursery, agricultural contractors, livery yard and pick-your-own farm.

We are lucky to have a much-appreciated doctor’s surgery, highly-rated primary school and an active and engaged church community, plus a very wide range of clubs and societies. Perhaps most important, in the context of increasingly busy and built-up areas, our area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) has probably some of the most stunning countryside, wildlife and scope for outdoor pursuits that can be found in southern England.

All of this adds up to a Parish which is rich in value and in the talents of its people, together with the normal occasional tensions and ranges of views. The Steering Group is mindful of the substantial responsibility in setting a Neighbourhood Plan framework for this community and has sought to provide a balanced Plan as well as some leadership on seeking to resolve some of the opposing points of view.

Summary of findings

Our findings reflect both factual inputs such as the Census and our Survey, as well as the consultations which have been undertaken already.

1.       There was a 5.9% rise in the population in the period 2001-11 and a 1.6% rise in the number of net dwellings

2.       26 new homes have been built in the last 15 years, of which 6 were on a greenfield site and the balance mostly on old farmyards; 16 houses have been rebuilt, mostly to accommodate a much larger unit, often with a separate flat

3.       91 of the 563 households are non-market dwellings and while many are in good condition the housing associations which own them have neglected some units which could provide better and more efficient accommodation

4.       There is a need for non-market housing among people with a local connection, with a small number of cases which could be considered relatively acute observed over the last 3 years; new non-market housing is needed on a modest scale to sustain the mix of the community

5.       Arguably more important is provision of housing for people who have retired but want to remain in the village and would appreciate more suitable stock; such provision would free up other units (both market and non-market) and sustain newcomers to the village or the ability of local young people to remain in the village

6.       The hamlets have seen large new houses – ranging from 4-bed houses replacing smaller units to “trophy houses” replacing former agricultural dwellings and are now – on aggregate – less balanced in their housing stock mix than 15 years ago

7.       The planning system is perceived as being skewed in favour of larger houses and does not favour those who wish to make modest changes; recent measures implemented at central government level to allow modest developments without formal permission to existing dwellings will be made permanent by the Plan, as long as certain measures are adhered to, such as using materials coherent with the design statement and including agreement by the Parish Council

8.       Our facilities are good, but can be improved:

a.       Village Centre in SMB: an excellent facility; can we provide more for young people?

b.      The School: improved parking would benefit the village as well; no need to move or expand the school dramatically, as the mix of local children to others is around 50:50

c.       The Surgery: additional space is needed which could be accommodated by moving the car park; we consider that as the Surgery’s hours are limited and that its “massing” (size and shape) is not significant a 25-33% increase in footprint would be acceptable but that rooflines should remain at the same level

d.      The Shop is now becoming a community investment company and could be the focus of other facilities, such as a tea room/coffee shop

e.      The Recreation ground is an excellent facility which will be protected by the Plan

f.        Provision of allotments and other communal assets, such as an orchard, would be a benefit

g.       Footpaths, bridleways and maintaining the roads in good condition for cyclists and those pushing buggies are priorities; we wish to work with landowners to sustain and extend access where possible, in return for respecting rights of way, farm operations and wild and game birds

9.       Infrastructure in the village is stretched, due to the topography, traffic movements, a large population load on old systems – water, sewerage, telecoms – and this will restrict development

a.       Aside from the Plan, we propose that Egbury Road be altered to improve safety and reduce speeds

b.      The sewerage system must be repaired to a working standard before any new houses are connected to it; this is a work in progress and defining the point at which the system is fit for purpose depends also on ground water levels

c.       A flood defence plan will be established and any new developments must include flood and water catchment mitigation measures

10.   The visual aspect of the village is considered almost universally to be a key asset which must be protected; sightlines, massing of structures, materials used and respect for the countryside of the Parish will be addressed by the Plan:

a.       Any development must respect sightlines from roads entering the village, views from footpaths and mitigate any potential negative effects

b.      In-fill developments or other changes to existing stock must allow for continued “views-through” so as to connect the village with its surroundings and prevent a feeling of being closed in

c.       Massing of new structures will be defined to respect closely the footprint, shape and “presence” of any structures replaced, to prevent imbalanced developments and adverse changes on the look and feel of the location

d.      Materials used should be sustainable where possible and respect the village design statement drafted in 2005 and which we consider still to be appropriate; the primary aim of the design aspect of the Plan is that any development should have its own character but not worsen the visual impact of its location

Aims

·         Maintain a balanced Parish with an incremental rise in population to sustain our dynamic community and develop local amenities and facilities further

·         Provide for movements between property types – e.g. older people vacating larger houses to allow young families to move in

·         Provide a mix of new housing to maintain the existing balance of private sector to non-market, including demanding of the housing associations that they develop their considerable housing stock in the village, some of which is sub-standard for the 21^st century

·         Sustain and re-energise the hamlets

·         Utilise brownfield sites: greenfield only permitted in very limited situations and for small numbers of units

Proposed policies

·         The Plan will allow the building of 30 new units over 15 years: this reflects the experience of the last 15 years, our assessment of the market need and the requirement for non-market housing. It will also show that we are contributing to solving the housing shortage across the south of England.

·         Brownfield sites will provide 18-25 of these units (e.g. 15 unused farmyards in the Parish).

·         No developments of more than 6 units on each brownfield site or under a Rural Exception.

·         Provision of housing for the elderly supported: rural exceptions to provide for this, with restrictions to “qualifying persons” - those with local connections, a no-extension policy and similar policy elements to ensure no further development; further provision to ensure that on the death of the person the dwelling must be vacated by people below retirement age and sold only to a qualifying person.

·         Up to two rural exception sites will be allowed in the period for developments to include non-market or sheltered housing:

o   Bell’s Field: 6 units of low-profile development for retired people; 4 commercial and 2 non-market; village orchard to be adjacent to this land as a screening belt;

o   Black Garden: 6 units; 4 commercial and 2 non-market; parking for the church and village centre events to be incorporated; 12 allotments to be located.

·         No development will be permitted in SMB village or Stoke until the sewers have reached a stage of functioning acceptably and over-pumping is not needed except in extreme conditions, such as prevailed in the winter of 2013-14 unless the site has its own waste treatment provision with no environmental risk.

·         Non-market housing supported via S106 (or covenants):

o   Any development of 4 houses must include 1 non-market unit, secured in perpetuity for a local person at 80% of market rent; any development of 5-6 houses must include 2 non-market units, secured similarly;

o   Any development of 1-2 houses must contribute via S106 to the non-market housing fund to support development of non-market units on other sites; a development of 3 houses would be supported if 1 were an non-market unit, secured as above.

·         New energy systems: large wind turbines will not be allowed in the Neighbourhood Plan area; large-scale solar or bio-digesters will not be permitted; small-scale solar (domestic) or biodigesters (community) will be supported, as long as they do not create line-of-sight issues; provision will be made for potential future projects, considering the rapid improvement in efficiency of particularly solar units, with a vote on their acceptance needed.

·         Roads and paths: Egbury road approach to the village to be reformatted to improve safety for all road users; existing byways and paths to be confirmed and secured; byway controls to be put on to prevent 4x4 usage in the winter on sensitive locations; landowners who provide permissive paths and bridleways should be supported in return for development projects which might be put forward on their brownfield sites.

·         Any development within the Parish settlement area (St Mary Bourne) must provide:

o   Off-street parking using porous materials to mitigate run-off;

o   Broadband contribution: to a central fund to ensure high-speed broadband, initially for all those in the accessible areas and in a second phase to the hamlets.

·         The Plan does not propose a change to the Settlement Policy Boundary of St Mary Bourne, except where brownfield sites may be sited adjacent to the SPB of SMB, in which case they will be governed by the policy outlined above.

Sustainability statement

The Plan steering group has assessed the Sustainability requirements of the Parish as follows:

1.       Our chief aim in addressing sustainability is to foster a sustainable and mixed community as follows:

a.       Sustain and support local families, individuals and groups, many of whom have contributed over many years or even over several generations to the benefit of the community to remain here in retirement, and/or to allow the next generation to stay in the Parish

b.      Allow a mix of incomers to the Parish

c.       Housing is expected to be built over the 15-year period in incremental stages, as the Parish does not support developments of more than a handful of units in any one location

2.       There is limited scope for development within the Parish, due to constraints of topography, flood plain, AONB restrictions, while our consultations indicate strong support for a distributed approach to new development; due to flooding and groundwater problems, any larger development would contribute to runoff and therefore is not considered sustainable

3.       Sufficient brownfield sites exist to provide for most of the new units: we assess 18-20 units could be built across some of the following sites, with 2-3 in each location, depending on the wishes of the owners and current tenants’ positions (we note also here mitigating factors). Such developments would be considered sustainable if they met the following conditions:

a.       They do not account for more than 33% of the site area (such that other buildings remain to sustain the visual mix)

b.      No new unit is more than 250m square in total floor area, including garaging and other outbuildings such as barns

c.       The massing of the new building is no more than 25% greater than the existing unit and roof heights are no more than 15% higher than the existing unit

d.      Hard standing will be no more than 25% of the outside surface area, to mitigate run-off

e.      Only new stock which meets high environmental standards for insulation, energy use and energy-efficient construction materials will be supported

f.        The design statement must be adhered to in terms of use of materials

4.       The following are intended as examples for guidance of brownfield sites and their mitigations and are not policy statements:

a.       The former scrap yard in Spring Hill: note that the slope of the access does not support a large development and the traffic flow contribution would also require a modest development

b.      Farmyards/farm buildings not being used: there are 15-17 unused farm facilities which could allow for a distributed approach to new dwellings; the Plan will ensure that a balance of farm buildings and housing stock for larger yards remains in order to respect a sustainable visual position; only existing unused buildings (at 30/6/14) will qualify to prevent new buildings being erected and then converted

c.       Buildings at the top of Breach Farm: note that traffic flow contribution would require a modest development and that it may not be desirable to cause the closure of the businesses operating there as this would reduce sustainability of employment

5.       The Plan provides for non-market housing on a distributed basis, rather than on one site, in order to foster a sustainable approach to housing mix and to build up a communal stock of such housing for the express benefit of people with a close local connection. We note that:

a.       Housing associations do not wish to develop less than 10-12 units and wish to work on a single site; and

b.      Basingstoke & Deane’s policies do not support non-market housing in the hamlets, due to concerns over access and inclusion; we do not consider this policy or that of housing associations as appropriate or viable for the Parish. Our consultation and evidence base provides very strong support for this:

                                                               i.      Any new development should be of small numbers

                                                             ii.      Non-market housing should be mixed with market housing

                                                            iii.      Development in the hamlets is supported

                                                           iv.      As there is very limited public transport in the Parish, those living in the villages (St Mary Bourne or Stoke) or the hamlets will need access to a car and we note that often extended families or neighbours provide this; we recognise that there may be certain difficulties in this respect, but see the benefits outweighing them

6.       The two proposed greenfield sites are given as examples of locations, for guidance, but considering the limited potential within the village (topography, flood zone, sightlines) we see few obvious alternatives. We recognise that taking a mixed approach (market and non-market) for rural exception sites may be controversial, but we see the following justifications:

a.       In order to meet the evidence base requests for (1) distributed non-market housing and (2) smaller units we do not expect a housing association to take on either project (or both together) so a commercial developer would need to see the benefits of this.

b.      The same case rests for the landowner: a smaller site, but higher value

c.       In order to be sustainable visually, sightlines need to be considered closely in both cases (both “common” sightlines – from footpaths and roads – and neighbour sightlines)

d.      The Parish benefits from additional amenities: orchard and allotments, plus parking for the Church and the centre of the village

e.      Both locations provide easy access for inhabitants to key facilities: the shop, surgery, church, recreation ground and pubs

7.       If these two sites are adopted, we consider that it would not be sustainable to allow any further greenfield development for the lifetime of the Plan.

8.       If another single site can be proposed which fits the sustainability guidelines established above, we would be very happy to consider this in the final draft of the Plan

9.       We refer to the large existing and planning developments adjacent to the village in Augusta Park (Andover) and Whitchurch and see these as providing potential supply for some local demand; as there are no sustainable large sites in the Parish the developments in these two locations mitigate the need to plan for more units in the Parish.

10.   We wish to sustain the character of the Parish by not installing street lighting or lighting in new developments which remains on continuously, or where motion sensor lights remain on for prolonged periods.

11.   We wish to establish the following projects after the Plan:

a.       Investigate a Parish transport resource (minibus)

b.      To investigate further sustainable measures

c.       To establish a Parish non-market housing group, including a community investment project, to support development of this housing stock to the benefit of those with a local connection and to facilitate such developments where private landlords are not able or willing to establish “in-perpetuity” non-market rental housing

d.      Further investigate footpaths, bridleways and cycle paths

Basis documents

Housing report

Housing survey

B&D Housing List

Census 2011

2005 Design Statement 

HAVE YOUR SAY ON THESE PROPOSALS