Consultation Two - A series of questions posted on the walls of the old Nat West Bank. Villagers were asked to indicate their preferences using coloured sticky dots.

The Results:

What type of housing
Exception housing Yes 15

Open Market Yes 99 27% Totals
No 9 Yes 369 85.6%
Social Rent Yes 27 7% No 62 14.4%
No 19 431
Part owned/part rented Yes 65 17%
No 7
1 bed studio flat Yes 18 5%
No 11
2 bed houses Yes 45 12%
No 6
3 bed houses Yes 76 21%
No 2
4/5 bed houses Yes 39 10%
No 8

Make provision for
Warden assisted sheltered housing Yes 115 92% Totals
No 10 8% Yes 187 90.8%
Care homes Yes 72 88.8% No 19 9.2%
No 9 11.1%

Where should it be built
2/3 large developments 8 3.8%
Several smaller (50) 37 17.6%
Lots of small 105 78.6%

Design
Traditional 59 28.1%
Modern with traditional features 140 66.6%
Modern 10 4.8%

Provision of new houses may generate some income - contribute to
Open space / park Yes 84 92.3%
No 7 7.7%
New community facility Yes 76 87.4%
No 11 12.6%

 

1. Project Ideas

1 Cycle route to join Waterlooville with A27 cycle route
2 Sign posted walks on existing footpaths
3 Or no more homes
4 We should make more use of the New Pavilion – never open
5 The occasional along the footpaths
6 tba

2 Notes

1 We need to explain for the benefit of those whose opinions were negative e.g 19 votes against social housing, where Denmead is either constrained by legislation / government decree, or has good reason to put aside negative votes. Cycle route to join Waterlooville with A27 cycle route
2 First question difficult to interpret – we perhaps needed to scope the questions e.g separate Open/social housing categories from types of dwelling.

3 Conclusions (1st pass)

1. Significant opinion in favour open market housing, but shared equity should not be ignored
2. Votes for warden assisted sheltered and care homes were very high
3. Location of development – large majority for lots of small development (78%) whereas very small vote for 2 or 3 large sites and only 17% wanted several under 50 dwellings per site.
4. Preference was for modern design with traditional features
5. We did not explain in this question of the ‘income generation’ that worthwhile funds would only become available for a significant single development, so should be cautious of using this data and how do we ask the question but show the potential implications of voting for ‘income generation’ (see Q4 above)

1. First encounters – the ‘marmite’ card survey
2. Background to the ‘Drop In’ Sessions and Survey
3. The Welcome
4. The ‘Drop In’ survey data
4.1 Housing needs
4.2 Placement of development
4.3 Recreation
4.4 Our Community
4.5 Moving around
4.6 Employment:
4.6.1 Self employment
4.6.2 Parklands Business Park
4.7 What about a Travellers site?
4.8 Recorded comments
5. Final remarks

1. First encounters – the ‘marmite’ card survey
1.1 Between May and September 2012, cards holding a simple three question survey were given out by DNF team members at a number of events and from a small stand outside the Co-op supermarket. This was done on nine occasions, at various times of day and various days of the week. This initial engagement gave the participant the chance to write down what they liked and what they disliked about Denmead, and if they so wished, what they suggested should be done to deal with any dislikes. 436 cards were returned. Deb Appleby (of Locality) agreed to carry out an analysis of them and this was presented to us at the meeting on 6 th October 2012. The main points were:
275 (63%) people liked the friendliness and village feel of Denmead.
Of the reasons given for this, the shops; open spaces; playing fields and sports facilities and the rural semi-rural character of the Parish, have over 50 mentions each.
196 (45%) people are concerned about the level of current and proposed future house building
129 (30%) see the Denmead Neighbourhood Plan (DNP) as a tool for influence future development.
Improving the ‘bus service and speeding traffic are also concerns (Both at 52 or 12%)
[Details of the engagement activity, with photos, together with the analysis can be obtained from the Clerk and will be prepared as a separate paper as supplementary paper to the Neighbourhood Plan.]
1.2 The Steering Group has agreed that this data gives us a logical flow of evidence which starts with the Blueprint submission, prepared (for Winchester City Council’s LDF consultation) in January 2011. This new data can be used with the other data being collected to provide justification within the NP.
2. Background to the ‘Drop In’ Sessions and the Survey
2.1 The second phase of the Neighbourhood Plan’s community engagement was done with a view to encouraging participation through a simple, direct approach. This was achieved by using A0-sized wall posters with the questions set out on them. Answers were made by placing an adhesive spot in the appropriate answer position.
2.2 ‘Drop In’ sessions were held at two locations. One was the Denmead Junior School during Parents Evenings on 2 nd /4 th October 2012 – on Recreation - and on the 5 th/7 th February 2012 – on Housing. This Report takes the opportunity to record the DNP team’s thanks to the Chair of Governors and the Executive Head Teacher for their permission to use the Parents’ Evenings to engage with a segment of the village population that, in the past, has proved difficult to reach.

2.3 The other location for ‘Drop-In’ sessions was an empty premise within the designated Primary Shopping Area of Denmead, formerly a branch of the Nat West Bank. Seven sessions were held during February of which four were on Saturdays and three on weekdays. The weather was bitterly cold and very wet so shoppers were invited in "to warm up" with hot coffee and to take part. At these ‘Drop-in’ events, the questions were varied and not all questions were at every session. This was deliberate policy aimed at limiting the demands of time upon participants.
3. The Welcome
3.1 Encouragement to take part was part of the team’s warm welcome and provided a valuable chance to chat to participants. In turn, this enabled the team to record ideas they had for a better quality of life for Denmead residents. The conversations provided an opportunity to counteract the view, sometimes expressed that "Whatever I say can’t make any difference". Although not all suggestions are appropriate to the Neighbourhood Plan (i.e. more police presence) these ideas are recorded at section 4.8 for follow-up action to be considered by the Parish Council.
3.2 At the ‘Drop-in’ sessions, as part of the welcome, participants were asked to provide their postcode. Of the 243 participants 233 provided valid postcodes. These have been plotted on a street map of the village (Figure 1.) and provides evidence that these surveys do NOT have a geographical bias.

Figure 1. Denmead street map showing location of those taking part in the former Nat West Bank ‘Drop In’ sessions.

4. The ‘Drop In’ survey data
4.1 Housing needs
4.1.1 This question was asked throughout the Village ‘Drop In’ sessions and at the Spring sessions at the Junior School. It was perceived by most people as the core of Neighbourhood Plans. Other than explaining the definitions of the terms used and the fact that this survey was a start which will be used alongside other information, such as that on demographic change, participants were able to answer as they saw fit, answering all, some or even none of the questions.

 

What type of housing?
Exception housing Yes 15
No 0
Open Market Yes 99 27% Totals
No 9 Yes 369 85.6%
Social Rent Yes 27 7% No 62 14.4%
No 19 431
Part owned/part rented Yes 65 17%
No 7
1 bed studio flat Yes 18 5%
No 11
2 bed houses Yes 45 12%
No 6
3 bed houses Yes 76 21%
No 2
4/5 bed houses Yes 39 10%
No 8

Make provision for the following
Warden assisted sheltered housing Yes 115 92% Totals
No 10 8% Yes 187 90.8%
Care homes Yes 72 88.8% No 19 9.2%
No 9 11.1%

Where should it be built?
2/3 large developments 8 3.8%
Several smaller (50) 37 17.6%
Lots of small 105 78.6%

 

Design
Traditional (i.e. 1950/60s semi-detached houses – example Purbrook, Waterlooville) 59 28.1%
Modern with traditional features (i.e. modern but with use of traditional features such as flint & brick walls and wooden porches – example Windmill Gardens - Denmead) 140 66.6%
Modern (i.e. use of large windows, angled flat roofs gall – example Affordable Homes in West Meon) 10 4.8%

 

Provision of new houses may generate some income – could this contribute to new facilities?
Open space / park Yes 84 92.3%
No 7 7.7%
New community facility Yes 76 87.4%
No 11 12.6%

 

4.1.2 Comment: An initial summary shows that there was
• significant opinion in favour of open market housing, but shared equity should not be ignored,
• support for warden assisted sheltered and care homes was very high,
• a majority for a lot of small-scale development (78%) but only limited support for 2 or 3 large sites e.g. three sites each of 50 or more whilst 18% of respondents wanted several under 50 dwellings per site,
• a clear preference was for modern design with traditional features.
The relationship between the income generation associated with developments and the size of development (i.e. The fact that “worthwhile” funds would only become available with larger developments) was not expanded upon in detail, thus the data on new facilities, whilst very important should be treated as indicative.

Figure 2. A map showing the sites mentioned in the following paragraphs.

4.2.1 Background: The opportunity for those responding to indicate where they thought the best place might be to take some of the development that Denmead will experience between now and 2031 was done by given people the chance to place a mark on a map of the Parish. This question was presented at both the Junior School parents’ evenings and at the former Nat West ‘Drop-In’ sessions, thus a total of 314 participants could have responded. In fact 224 took part.
4.2.2 The results are set out below:
Site ref Site location # %
367 Kidmere (Carpenters Field) 57 (25.5%)
1776 Land between Inhams Lane and Hawthorn Road 43 (19.2%)
313 Land adjacent to Kidmere 33 (14.7%)
Anthill
Common Land adjacent to Thompsons Lane 32 (14.3%)
2003 Land at Parklands Business Park 11 (4.9%)
310/311 Land between Forest Road and Furzley Road 11 (4.9%)
2004 Land next to Maple Drive 10 (4.5%)
2493 Land between Inhams Field and Harvest Road 8 (3.6%)
South of
Harts Copse Greater Frenchies Field 7 (3.1%)
362 Land between Bunkers Hill and Forest Road 6 (2.7%)
1835 Land at Old River 6 (2.7%)

4.2.3 Comment: These results give support to the idea that an extension of the village to the north, at the field called Kidmere (known popularly as Carpenters Field) and an adjacent field would not only be sustainable (i.e. proximate to the village shops and facilities) but would be acceptable to a large proportion (40%) of the village (25.5 + 14.7)%. Land to the west, at Inhams Lane, accessible from Harvest Road and Inhams Lane (and even Hawthorn Road but that is in private ownership) is the second potential area. [Note these results do not take into account environmental factors such as SINCs and Flood Plains. These will need to be overlaid on the survey data when the placement criteria have been finalised.]

4.3 Recreation
4.3.1 Background: Informal surveys were carried out using questions written up on A0-sized posters and people were invited to place sticky spots against any suggestions they support. Everyone had five spots and could use more than one on any one item. They were not obliged to use them all, if that was their wish. Respondents could add ‘written-in’ answers on post-it notes.
4.3.2 The results are set out below:
A.What would you use extra space for if Denmead could obtain it for public use:
1. Formal sport (i.e. pitches - sports use) Yes 108 No 10
2. Informal (kick-around jogging track) Yes 94 No 8
3. Allotments (or mini-allotments) Yes 89 No 10
4. Would you like to have a Park with flower beds and seats to sit and enjoy the space? Yes 154 No 3
5. Any other ideas? ……….
Would you use any of the above personally? Yes 153 No 5
If so which one(s)? ……….
If formal space is wanted – what kind of pitches are needed?
More football …19…….
5 a side pitches (and League?) …20……
Hockey …11…….
Rugby …29.….
Other sport i.e. Handball, Volleyball, Baseball, Ultimate …62….
Would you join a team/class to do them? Yes 58 No 20
Would it help if a trainer was there to teach you? Yes 45 No 6
Adults/seniors only: Would you help to run the team/class? Yes 27 No 17
Using the map (on the wall) where would you put this new space? [Results to follow]
B. Do you use an indoor facility for sport ? Yes 92 No □
If so where …
Denmead Yes 19 No □
Waterlooville Yes 88 No □
Havant Yes 19 No □
Fareham Yes 9 No □
Somewhere else? Yes 29 No □
If so, in what sport/activity do you participate ?
Fitness Yes 47 No □
Swimming Yes 88 No □
Badminton Yes 11 No □
Five a side Football Yes 6 No □
Other ?

How often?
Daily? Yes 14 No □
Weekly? Yes 93 No □
Monthly? Yes 6 No □
Occasionally? Yes 11 No □
Never Yes □ No □

What would encourage you to use them more frequently?
Easier to get to? Yes 42 No □
Make them cheaper? Yes 28 No □
Wouldn’t use them more frequently Yes 5 No □

C. Do you use Creech Woods? Yes 178 No □
If so is it to –
walk the dog Yes 84 No
enjoy the woods with healthy exercise Yes 108 No □
use, or allow children/friends to use the new play areas? Yes 102 No □

4.3.3 An initial reading of the results shows that -
• The idea of a ‘formal’ park to allow people to enjoy being out-of-doors without formal sport or play area nearby has been strongly supported.
• More formal (i.e. pitch) sports space – with some support for different or ‘new’ sports; informal sports space and allotments have all be well supported.
• Not surprisingly, Waterlooville is the venue that most people use for indoor recreation (i.e. gym and swimming) on a weekly basis. If further participation is to be encouraged then proximity to Denmead and cost are the two factors that might encourage more people to join in ‘sport’ … or maybe the same people to do more!
• The use of Creech Woods, although a Forestry Commission site, is shown to be important to residents of all ages and thus may be a site for further joint projects between the Parish and the Commission.
4.4 Our Community
4.4.1 Background: The explanatory text of the question was as follows: “Community feedback from the ‘card’ survey conducted last year has told us that 63.1% like Denmead’s friendliness and village feel and that nearly 10% specifically mentioned that they valued such things as the shops, open spaces playing fields. Do you agree with them?” (Everyone could use up to three spots). This survey was available from 20th to 23rd February and involved 91 people.

4.4.2 The results area set out below:

Q1. Living in Denmead I particularly value …

The Health Centre □ 63 69.2%
Shops (see also Q2) □ 34 37.4%
The countryside □ 63 69.2%
Community Groups (WI, DVA etc) □ 9 9.9%
Post Office □ 31 34.1%
Footpaths □ 31 34.1%
Pre-Schools/Child Care □ 5 5.5%
Churches □ 17 18.7%
Ashling Park (Cricket/Football/Bowls/Tennis) □16 17.9%
The Community Centre □ 21 23.1%
Have we missed something? If so, let us know. Vet 4 (4.4%),
Pubs 6 (6.4%)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q2 Do you think we should encourage and expand our shopping area ?
Yes □ 30 (33.0%) No □ 33 (36.3%)

4.4.3 Comment – The Health Centre, Post Office and Shops met physical needs and are valued. The Countryside and Footpaths back up the findings of the Marmite survey, that residents value Denmead’s rural characteristics.
The lower importance given to community groups and sports facilities is surprising, but may be a factor of the aging population, a theme which is supported by the lack of importance attached to the Pre-Schools/Childcare question.
Although the encouragement of Shops is supported by a third of the respondents, a similar number were against this, probably concerned at the aspect of expanding the shopping capability, thus supporting the local retailers on the basis of sustainability (reducing car use) is not ruled out on these figures.
4.5 Moving around
The questions on transport and issues associated with moving within and outside of the Parish were asked of those people who attended the last four sessions (three weekdays and a Saturday) which totalled 91 in all. One thirds of those people preferred not to complete the questions. In particular, the numbers for the question on travel to and from work are too small to draw any conclusion.
Twenty of the 31 respondents answered “yes” to the question “If public transport were more readily available would you use it?” whilst 33 out of 35 felt that “Denmead should make more of its greenways and cycleways”.
Regarding shopping trips, 43 of 56 respondents do their main shopping in Waterlooville whilst 45 of 52 do their ‘top-up’ shopping in Denmead.
For entertainment, 25 of 60 respondents said that they went to Havant or Portsmouth, whilst 16 stayed in Denmead.
Comment: Given the low numbers involved care must be taken in using these figures, however where there is official data from other sources the figures quoted above will provide the important support from a local perspective.
4.6 Employment:
4.6.1 Background: Both of these questions were available for comment through the entirety of the ‘Drop In’ sessions at the former Nat West Bank and thus 243 people could have answered these questions.
4.6.2 Self employment
The question was ARE YOU SELF - EMPLOYED?
Explanatory text was “To support the start-up and encourage new and small businesses (and thus having more jobs in Denmead for the people of Denmead) we are keen to find out more about self-employed people and their businesses. Can you help by answering these short questions, please?”
Do you work alone?
Yes □ 13 No □ 18
Do you work away from home?
Yes □ 15 No □ 15
Would you like to rent/buy a start-up unit in Denmead?
Yes □ 3 No □ 18
Would you use a business hub?
Yes □ 7 No □ 15
Would you like a facility for shared support services?
Yes □ 10 No □ 10
Comment: These figures show a surprising lack of enthusiasm for the Parish Council’s received wisdom that we need small units for businesses to move “out of the lounge/bedroom”. The use of a business hub is supported, with some demand for shared services. There is a role for the DNF to relate these findings to those of the Employers/Employment Work Package to further consider these findings.

4.6.3 Parklands Business Park
The question was SOME LAND FOR MORE JOBS?
Explanatory text/question was “Would you support the idea of encouraging new and established businesses, and thus having more jobs in Denmead for the people of Denmead, by allocating more land - about 2 hectares (about 5 acres) of space - to the Parklands Commercial Estate area?”
Yes □ 139 (84.4%)
No □ 26 (15.6%)
Note: Five people commented that better use should be made of the existing units.
Comment: This evidence shows strong support for Parklands to be promoted and for the consideration of its expansion. The aim of these deliberations would be to ensure that as far as it is possible, there are more jobs in Denmead for Denmead people. In the Parish Council’s experience, making better use of Parklands as a business area could be achieved by bringing it inside a revised development boundary enabling change of use of existing premises to be achieved more easily and thus enabling the area to be reactive to both a changing economy and changing society.

4.7 What about a Travellers site?
The option to identify, by marking on a map) a site for five traveller caravans was presented to the final five ‘Drop In’ sessions. The was a reluctance to be involved in answering and this was judged to be part of the antipathy to the issues of Travellers and a view that Denmead should not have any. Denmead has a history of traveller incursions (most recently at Parklands Business Park) which engenders this view. Of the 18 responses (from a possible 135) 10 indicate a site on the edge of Creech Wood which is on the border of the NP Area.
A constructive verbal comment made by one participant and echoed by others, is that HCC has a site at Whiteley, one that is not remote, neither is it close to existing housing. It could be enlarged using derelict land close by and would fulfil Winchester District’s quota.

4.8 Recorded comments
4.8.1 The following is the list of all comments written in response to the wall surveys. Where they were repeated (or a similar comment was made, the number of occurrences is in brackets after the subject.
1 Cycle route to join Waterlooville with A27 cycle route
2 Promote cycling for transport and recreation
3 Better buses
4 Sign posted walks on existing footpaths
5 Improve the upkeep of footways (pavements)
6 Provide more dog bins (2)
7 Safe, enclosed dog friendly space
8 No more homes (3)
9 We should make more use of the New Pavilion – never open
10 The occasional sign post along the footpaths
11 Provide an Indoor Cricket facility
12 50m Swimming Pool
13 400m oval running track (2)
14 Paved path around Ashling Park for easy walking
15 A formal park with flower beds (3)
16 More allotments
17 Fence the junior Creech Wood Play area
18 Provide Toilets at Creech Wood
19 Improve paths at Creech Woods for easier winter use

4.8.2 Comment: The list is set out as the comments were made. No attempt has been made to answer or action the comments in this document although the Parish Council has a clear policies which deal with some. Others are particularly expensive, but all should figure in the Neighbourhood Plan team’s discussion as options for future community facilities are explored.

5. Final Remarks
My thanks are recorded to those Parish Councillors and DNP team members who helped in the processing of the data, to Tony Daniells for tidying the final inserts and to Patricia Stallard and Jenny Nell for their comments on various drafts of the paper.
NHL-B

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.

Click HERE to download a PDF of this report which includes a sample of the simple question card, a photograph from one of the consultation events, and also an Annex giving the Options.

REPORT on the third round of community engagement – Options for allocating development
Version 2.0
17h September 2013

1. Purpose
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. Methodology
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. Results
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. Analysis
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
Invalid 13
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. Conclusion
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