REPORT on the third round of community engagement –
Options for allocating development
17h September 2013
1.1 Research and evidence gathering for the Neighbourhood Plan has reached the point where consideration now needs to be given to the allocation of sites to complete the meeting of the allocated total of 250 dwellings for Denmead as set out in the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 1. Members of the Development Allocation Work Package had reviewed all the sites included on the current WCC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment using both its own criteria and that used by WCC Officers. In a workshop held to develop our consideration of the SHLAA sites within the NP Area it was agreed that residents should be involved in understanding the implications of allocating sites and that they should be to asked for views on how approach the task. Five options were developed ranging from do all the building on one large build of the 160 dwellings needed to complete Denmead’s allocation through 2 sites of 80 dwellings; 4 sites of 40 dwellings; 5 sites of 32 dwellings to 10 sites of 16 dwellings each.
[NB of the 250 total, 80 are already being built at Little Frenchies Field and 11 more are planned at land at Old River.]
1.2 The details of the ten, A0 sized boards that were created and then presented to the public for consideration are to be found at appendix A of this paper. Briefly, when viewed in order, the first two summarised engagement work to date, the next one then set out the givens or framework for this exercise, Five boards then set out the five options being presented, with one board explaining how to respond and the final board informing the reader where the NP team expect to go with this information. Residents also saw plans of where the SHLAA sites were.
2.1 Two approaches were used for this engagement. Three open exhibitions were held during August 2013 one in the major housing area and two in the village centre. Participants were invited to consider the boards, ask Steering Group members who were in attendance any questions and complete a simple card and place it in a sealed box.
2.2 Alternatively, with all the information placed on the DNP web-site, anyone visiting it between 24th August and 2nd September was asked to complete the same questionnaire online.
2.3 The consultation was promoted through a leaflet posted through every door in the village, through posters and on the Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan web-sites. All subscribers to the DNP e-mail Newsletter (currently numbering 90) received personal notification.
2.4 Analysis of the cards was carried out on 4th September by four members of the Steering Group (PA, NL-B, JK, PS) with the assistance of the Clerk. The cards were counted to establish the distribution of residents first choice option, second choice options etc. In all 187 people took part in this exercise. The numbers of invalid choices rises as one reaches the third, fourth fifth option because some participants chose to state only their first, or first and second choice. 25 people took part by internet with 162 visiting the exhibitions. The small numbers involved do not allow any conclusion to be drawn on whether those taking part online had a different view to other participants.
3.1 The results of the counts are set out below
FIRST choice SECOND choice THIRD Choice
Option 5 73 Option 4 71 Option 3 57
Option 3 46 Option 3 38 Option 2 33
Option 2 29 Option 2 30 Option 4 25
Option 1 17 Option 1 23 Option 1 25
Option 4 16 Option 5 6 Option 5 22
Invalid 6 Invalid 19 Invalid 25
FOURTH choice FIFTH Choice
Option 2 64 Option 1 80
Option 4 31 Option 5 44
Option 5 24 Option 4 20
Option 3 21 Option 2 8
Option 1 15 Option 3 5
Invalid 32 Invalid 30
4.1 In no part of the count did any preferred option achieve what could be considered as a clear preference i.e. over 50 % of that count. Option 1 scored 43% of the fifth choice counts whilst at the other end of the scale option 5 scored 39% of the first choice votes.
4.2 In order to ensure that all recorded responses were given proper consideration the results were weighted (5 for first choice, 4 for second etc.) to ensure that every participant’s vote was given full recognition, thus each option received a weighted score. The following counts resulted
Option 3 score 600
Option 5 score 547
Option 4 score 521
Option 2 score 500
Option 1 score 362
4.3 In order to ensure that a proper understanding of the data had been achieved, a further analysis of the votes was done. In this work, the first preference votes were examined and for the two Options which scored worst (Options 1 and 4), their second preference votes were re-allocated (where possible) according to their second preference.
The result of this exercise gave
Option 5 with transferred vote score 80
Option 3 with transferred vote score 57
Options 2 with transferred vote score 37
This exercise made no difference to the ranking of Options that was recorded in the first choice analysis (see 3.1) and therefore was not explored further.
5.1 The results clearly show that there is a limited appetite for nominating one big site to take the whole of the allocation yet to be made. Option 1 (one large site to fulfil the requirement) scores badly in the weighted values and was placed fifth.
5.2 Option 3, that of four sites of 40 dwellings, tops the list when weights are applied and in simple counts it formed the majority of the third choice counts (30%) and was second in the first choice and second choice votes.
5.3 The results show Option 3 as being indicated as an important factor when considering the implication of this option for SHLAA sites, and should be part of that work.
5.4 Further, the survey indicates that of the other choices, Option 5 (many small sites) which ranks highest in the analysis of first choice options (39%) and second in the weighted scores should also be given due consideration and has a part to play in making proposals for site allocation.
Cllr Neil Lander-Brinkley
Chairman, Denmead Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group