Summary of West Berkshire Planning Strategy Preferred Options consultation event at Newbury Rugby Club on 10 March 2006
Introduction
1. 0 On 10th March 2006 West Berkshire Council held a consultation event to discuss the Preferred Options for the West Berkshire Planning Strategy – the core future planning strategy for the district and the lead document of the Local Development Framework.
1.1 This formed part of the formal consultation period lasting from the 24th February to the 7th April 2006. The event was aimed primarily at stakeholders who represent a wide variety of community interests across the voluntary, public and private sector. Those taking part included representatives from the Town and Parish Councils of West Berkshire, environmental groups, the development industry and organisations representing disadvantaged/hard to reach groups.
1.2 The event was introduced by Keith Chopping, the Executive Member for Planning and Environment and included presentations by Colin Chapman and Paula Amorelli of the Planning Policy team at West Berkshire Council.
1.3 Following the presentations, which gave an overview of the Local Development Framework and the content of the Preferred Options document, everyone joined smaller workshop discussion groups based on the following areas / interests. A summary of the discussions can be found on the following pages.
Workshop / Spatial options / Development management policies1 / Newbury/Thatcham / Housing type and mix
2 / Hungerford and the rural areas and maintaining key facilities (including the racehorse industry) / Affordable housing in rural areas
3 / Eastern urban area and conserving and enhancing environmental assets / Renewable energy and energy efficiency
4 / Cross boundary issues (inc.Tadley)
and the rural areas / Provision of affordable housing
5 / Newbury/Thatcham / Housing type and mix
6 / Eastern urban area and conserving and enhancing environmental assets / Renewable energy and energy efficiency
Discussion Group 1
Topic Areas: Newbury and Thatcham
Housing type and mix
Group members:
Alban Henderson (Facilitator – West Berkshire Council)
Anthony Pick (Woodridge Residents Association)
Mag Williams (Kennet Shopping)
Robert Willis (Volunteer Centre, Shopmobility, West Berks Social Services
and Newbury Society)
Phil Lightowler (Newbury Buses)
Peter Atkinson (West Berkshire Chamber of Commerce)
Gill Brown (Alzheimer’s Society – West Berkshire Branch)
Ed Cooper (Spokes)
Guy West (Westbuild Homes)
Anna Ditchburn (West Berkshire Council Education Services)
Angela Banks (West Waddy ADP)
Gina Houghton (Newbury Town Council)
Roy Tolcher (Speen Parish Council)
Philip Parry (RPS Transport)
Shaun Whitfield (DPDS Consulting Group)
Mitch Roberts (Newbury Town Centre Management Steering Group)
Andy Marsh (Rivar)
Gillian Durrant (Newbury Town Council)
Summary of discussion
Development on previously developed land
2.0 There was some dissatisfaction with back gardens coming under the definition of ‘previously developed land’ (PDL). There was a feeling it was important to find some way of protecting private gardens from development, even if this meant lowering the target of 70% of new development on PDL and building on a larger number of Greenfield sites.
2.1 Various ideas for protecting gardens in urban areas were put forward, from allocating new Conservation Areas to raising the section 106 requirements for development on brownfield sites.
Transport and infrastructure
2.2 Discussion turned to look at the issue of the impact new development has on infrastructure, including transport, education and healthcare. It was felt that the capability of ‘developer contributions’ to mitigate against the transport impacts was limited, as the system is not geared up to fund long-term investment.
2.3 There was a preference to see more comprehensive approaches to new development, with larger sites being more likely to deliver facilities such as new shops and schools, as opposed to piecemeal residential development. It was mentioned that greenfield sites on the fringe of town has delivered this kind of development before, such as the area around and including John Rankin Primary School in Newbury.
Ageing population
2.4 With regard to the ageing population in both West Berkshire and the UK as a whole, the importance of planning development that can accommodate a larger number of elderly people, catering for their needs was mentioned. This included the provision of a sufficient number care homes.
Housing mix
2.5 There was some support for the policy towards housing mix in the Preferred Options document. Some felt that it was important there was not a prescriptive policy in terms of stating exact percentages of housing types and sizes that would be expected. There was a desire to see this issue determined at the district or local level, rather than from central government.
Discussion Group 2
Topic areas: Hungerford and the rural areas and maintaining key facilities (including the racehorse industry).
Affordable housing in rural areas.
Group members
Robert Webb (Facilitator – West Berkshire Council)
Isobel Johnson (Notetaker – West Berkshire Council)
Jean Hutchings (Hungerford Town Council)
Peter Harries (Hungerford Town Council)
Denise Buchan (West Berkshire Children’s Fund)
Christine Lalley (Beenham Parish Council)
Mark Martin (Hungerford 2010+ Plan)
Roy Green (Kintbury Parish Council)
Chris Trigwell (Kintbury Parish Council)
Rob Crispin (Chieveley Parish Council)
David Smith (Basildon Parish Council)
Tom Booth (Rural Housing Trust)
Arlene Kersley (Community Council for Berkshire)
Neil Sanderson (Peasemore Parish Council)
Nick Mannering (RPS Planning)
Simon Tannahill (Linden Homes)
Huw Williams (North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)
Jeremy Brooke (Bucklebury Parish Council)
Chris Scorey (Hungerford 2010+ Plan)
Jane Kiely (West Berkshire Ramblers Association)
Mike Gooding (Sheepdrove Organic Farm)
Chris Strang (Christopher Strang Associates)
Summary of discussion
Hungerford
3.0 Members of Hungerford Town Council and representatives of the Hungerford 2010+ Plan felt the Preferred Options seemed to direct all greenfield development for the rural areas of the district to Hungerford. There was further concern that Hungerford was the only identified ‘Principal Rural Service Centre’, whereas others are ignored. However this interpretation of the Preferred Options was not shared by all members of the group.
Settlement Boundaries
3.1 Discussion focussed on the role of settlement boundaries. Could they become more flexible to allow for small scale development on the edge of settlements? In Basingstoke and Deane many settlement boundaries around villages were removed by the Planning Inspector when adopting their local plan. This means there can be no new development in these villages except for affordable housing on rural exception sites. Is this the right approach?
The Rural Economy
3.2 There was some discussion around the rural economy, what should come first: the needs of rural business or the needs of the rural community? There was some support for rural businesses to be encouraged, in order to make villages more sustainable locations.
Affordable Housing in Rural Areas
3.3 There was some concern from developers that lowering the thresholds to one dwelling (where contributions would be sought towards affordable housing) would be difficult to deliver, each individual property may become too expensive. The representative from the Rural Housing Trust explained that materials were more expensive when building in rural areas. There was support for maintaining the ‘rural exceptions’ policy – where sites that would not normally be given planning permission may be considered if it can provide affordable housing. There was some discussion about ensuring the correct mix of housing.
3.4 Discussion on possible problems in securing land for affordable housing in rural areas under the LDF system, where plans are reviewed more regularly. There will be less long term certainty over sites, meaning that landowners who in the past sold land which had little hope of being developed may hold on to it in the future.
3.4 A point was made that schemes such as shared ownership are very important for first time buyers and should be maintained.
Other issues
3.5 Other issues discussed included the proposed cuts by First Great Western to train services in West Berkshire. Does this detract from the ‘sustainability’ factor that the affected railway stations provide? Another issue group members raised was the continuing loss of agricultural buildings to housing. Some felt that development should be centred more on the villages, rather than focusing the majority of new housing on Newbury. There was a concern over a possible worsening of traffic in Newbury if it is to be the focus for new development.
3.6 There was a lot of support for the inclusion of renewable energy technologies in new housing. It was felt that the wording of the Preferred Options document was to ambiguous on the subject of renewable energy. It was felt the policy should be more prescriptive, setting high standards. There is such a demand for housing in West Berkshire that we can afford to set high standards.
Discussion Group 3
Topic areas: Eastern Urban Area and conserving and enhancing environmental assets.
Renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Group Members
Dawn Hancocks (Facilitator – West Berkshire Council)
Helen Pritchard (Notetaker – West Berkshire Council)
Alison Beaumont (Bradfield Parish Council)
Frances Johnson (Environment Agency)
Colin Blundell (British Waterways)
Rick Jones (Purley on Thames Parish Council)
John Holt (West Berkshire Neurological Alliance)
Jo Rueth (Theale Parish Council)
Dennis West (Westbuild Homes)
Ian Bacon (TV Energy)
Angela Doone (Roger Miles Planning)
Royce Longton (West Berkshire Council Member)
Summary of Discussion
Eastern Spatial Options
4.0 There was some opposition to the spatial strategy set out in the Preferred Options. It was felt that more residential development could be more practical near Reading due to the employment provision and transport facilities, in accordance with the South East Plan strategy.
4.1 Theale was thought to be an inappropriate location for major development, as it is a village. South West Reading would be more practicable. Representatives of Purley objected to being labelled as an urban area. Fears that development there could impact upon the AONB and floodplain.
4.2 Some people pointed to the proximity of Arlington Business Park as making Theale a sustainable location for development, but there was concerns over the density of development. It was also difficult to make informed decisions about the best locations for new development without having information about the housing numbers expected (SE Plan yet to be adopted).
Infrastructure requirements
4.3 Some felt that the ‘organic’ growth of settlements was preferential to one new large development. However others felt there were advantages in the latter, in that it was more likely to provide significant improvements in infrastructure. It was feared that school capacities would struggle with the continuation of ‘infill’ development.
Development Management
4.4 Some felt that the policy wording in the Preferred Options was not strong enough, the word ‘encourage’ should be replaced with ‘require’. Support for Renewable energy, it could be a good economic stimulus for West Berkshire – as providers of the technologies will be needed.
4.5 Discussion over the delivery of renewable technology by housebuilders and also the EcoHomes ranking system. Commercial development should also be required to meet renewable energy standards. Some felt that the policy should be phased so that appropriate adaptation can take place and development is not suddenly halted when the policy is implemented.
Wind turbines in AONB
4.6 There is potential of some sites to accommodate wind turbines, but this should not be throughout the AONB. Clear site assessment is key. Will there be a policy for similar installation of turbines like the one at Green Park in Reading? This is a more acceptable location in landscape terms. Some felt that all residents of West Berks should contribute to renewable energy – including those who reside in the AONB. However there should be awareness that there are other sources of renewable energy beyond wind. It was mentioned that targets for energy provision from renewables would not require a “littering of the landscape”, just a small number of turbines, rather than wind farms.
Renewable targets
4.7 Is 10% Renewable target sufficient? Feeling that it should be in line with the surrounding area – Oxford City are seeking 20%. However some felt that the characteristics of West Berks need to be taken into account, it is a largely rural area.
Other issues
4.8 There should be greater reference to tourism and leisure within the Preferred Options.
Discussion Group 4
Topic areas: Cross Boundary issues (including Tadley)
Affordable Housing
Group Members
Caroline Peddie (Facilitator – West Berkshire Council)
Michelle Sanchez (Stonham Housing Association)
Crissy Clemson (Aldermaston Parish Council)
David Betts (Purley Parish Council)
Anthony Hawkins (Bell Cornwell Partnership)
Edward Golton (CPRE)
Jane Gibson (Dreweatt Neate)
Ian Lindsay (Wasing Estate)
Ros Brandwood (Newtown Parish Council)
Jeannine Barber (CPRE)
Philip Parry (RPS)
Irene Neill (West Berkshire Council Member)
Summary of discussion
Cross Boundary spatial options
5.0 The extent of the proposed expansion of AWE is still being determined. In the past AWE have employed more staff and it would be prudent to plan on the basis that that level can be reached again. However the requirement for a skilled workforce is likely to mean that AWE workers could come from far and wide – implications for travel patterns. Group heard from a Planning Agent that Bovis and Pye Homes have proposed new housing north of Tadley, 200-400 houses would fund significant infrastructure.
5.1 Concern at level of infrastructure provision in area and felt that as a cross-border area, Tadley had suffered from lack of investment over the years. However, it’s a very significant employment area, with 4,000 jobs at AWE plus Calleva Park and Young’s Industrial Area. Some felt there was a current lack of joined up thinking regarding this area and more potential for cross boundary working. Questioned how LDFs are going to relate to each other and what is the cross border consultation process?
5.2 While there was said to be spare capacity at schools in Tadley and Aldermaston, there was other infrastructure improvements needed, such as the provision of pedestrian crossings and cycleways.
Affordable Housing
5.3 There was support for an increased percentage of affordable housing to be sought on greenfield land, and it was questioned why is an increased amount not being sought on brownfield sites? It was pointed out that typically, brownfield sites are more costly to develop. There was a concern that affordable housing should not be confined to areas on the edges of settlements – should be in more sustainable locations, closer to urban centres.