Consultation Three - August 2013
DENMEAD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Options for allocation of development
SO FAR – in the
‘marmite’ card survey -
YOU HAVE TOLD US
63% of you liked Denmead’s friendliness and village feel - the shops, open spaces, playing fields and sports facilities and the semi-rural character of the Parish each got over 50 mentions each.
45% of you are concerned about the level of current and proposed future house building.
30% see this Plan as a tool for influencing future development.
Improving the ‘bus service, and highways and traffic issues were also concerns (12 % each).
Other priorities suggested were keeping green fields and open spaces; better access to facilities; 2 bedroom houses; affordable homes for local people; create local jobs.
AND - in the ‘Drop-In’
surveys at the former
Bank and Junior School -
YOU HAVE TOLD US
Residents were asked to indicate what types of housing they would wish to see in any future Denmead Developments. 85.6% of votes cast accepted that there was a need for housing and indicated the types of housing they would wish to see.
27% preferred the housing to be Open Market.
21% of votes were for 3 bedroomed houses.
90.8% of votes recognised the need to provide sheltered or care housing to meet the needs of an aging population.
78.6% of votes were for a large number of small sites rather than two or three large sites.
66.6% of votes were for modern houses with traditional feature such as flint & brick walls (for example - Windmill Gardens)
Options for allocation of development
with planning ‘gains’ set out
GIVENS
A: DEVELOPMENT
(following policy MTRA2 of the new District Local Plan part 1)
250 dwellings …. "at least", less
80 at Little Frenchies Field
____
170 less
11 at Old River, gives a target of
____
159 dwellings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B: HOUSING PROVISION AND MIX
(following policy CP2 of the new District Local Plan part 1)
New residential development to meet a range of housing needs, delivering a wide choice of homes, priority being given to affordable housing. There should be a range of dwelling types, tenures and sizes appropriate to their location, with the majority of homes in the form of 2 and 3 bedroomed houses. Specialist housing (e.g. extra care housing and homes for those with support needs) to be provided, taking into account local needs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
(following policy CP3 of the new District Local Plan part 1)
Of the 250 houses, 40 % (i.e. 100) will be Affordable housing of which 70% (i.e. 70 dwellings) will for Social Rent and the others will for other schemes such as shared ownership.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D: OPEN SPACE, SPORT & RECREATION
(following policy CP7 of the new District Local Plan part 1)
New housing developments should make provision for public open space and built facilities in accordance with up to date standards – either through on-site provision or by financial contributions
Here are FIVE options for development. As you move through the different options, the opportunity to ‘gain’ facilities for the village reduces.
OPTION 1 - 1 site – 160 dwellings
64 affordable homes
of which 45 will be for Social Rent
Pros
Bargaining power to obtain facilities for village more likely from a single developer;
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money payable in a single payment;
Infrastructure improvements more affordable with a larger development;
Green spaces available onsite;
Phased development may be negotiated;
Consistent design across the development.
Cons
Might not get sufficient green spaces / or spaces where they are wanted;
Potential for this to be an independent ‘community’ and fail to integrate with Denmead village;
Limitations of site availability;
Precludes housing for elderly where it is wanted;
Visual impact of a single large development.
OPTION 2 - 2 sites - 80 dwellings each site
32 affordable homes on each site of which 22 will be for Social Rent
Pros
CIL money payable in two large sums;
Bargaining power to obtain facilities for village;
Infrastructure inadequacies could be addressed;
Provision of green/open spaces possible;
Phased development possible;
Consistent design across each development;
More flexibility regarding location;
Possibly more than one developer - market forces can operate;
Sites may integrate more easily alongside existing in each area.
Cons
More visual impact than smaller sites;
Might limit infrastructure;
Developer facilities for the village less likely.
OPTION 3 - 4 sites – 40 dwellings each site
16 affordable homes on each site, of which 11 will be for Social Rent
Pros
Integrate into village scene more easily;
Attract smaller/independent developers with character (i.e. non-standard) design codes;
Flexibility, with phasing between developments possible, in selection of sites;
Market forces allow tailoring of sites to meet local needs.
Cons
CIL drip fed – the separate payments will have to be saved for use on any larger project thus facilities may be delayed or made impossible;
Fewer developer proposals to mitigate impact of development;
Infrastructure further limited;
Increased disruption of construction within parish.
OPTION 4 - 5 sites – 32 dwellings each site
13 affordable homes, of which 9 will be for Social Rent, in each site
Pros
More easily integrated into village scene;
Attract smaller/independent developers with character (i.e. non-standard) design codes;
Some flexibility with phasing, selection of sites, because of market forces;
Potential to tailor each site to meet local (e.g. aging population) needs.
Cons
Several smaller sites will mean more wide- spread/longer disruption (e.g. possible worse impact on local roads of mud);
Less bargaining power and fewer developer proposals (infrastructure) to offset the disruption;
Difficulty locating smaller sites;
Impact on local/immediate residents spread across village.
OPTION 5 - 10 sites – 16 dwellings each site
6 affordable homes, of which 4 will be for Social Rent, in each site
Pros
Allows for smaller developments by local developers;
May integrate into some parts of the village more easily.
Cons
Possibly not financially viable for developers;
Few facilities provided to offset development and no room for negotiation;
Insufficient sites (of that size) available;
Disruption within parish/village is maximised;
CIL monies will be drip-fed and would have to be reserved until enough in the “kitty” for a large project ;
New infrastructure projects difficult to arrange.
IN SUMMARY
5 options from 1 large site to multiple smaller sites and options in between.
Large sites make it more affordable for the developer to offer facilities to the village and address infrastructure inadequacies.
Larger sites may have more visible impact and become their own independent community.
Mid-sized sites may not give infrastructure improvements or village facilities but may more easily integrate into Denmead .
Small sites would attract CIL but little else to offset their impact on the village, however they may be more easily integrated into the village.
This consultation has now closed.