ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2014 - 2032
CONSULTATION STATEMENT
Published by Odiham Parish Council for consultation under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations
July 2016
1
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
CONTENTS Page
1. Compliance with Regulation 15 3
2. Background to consultation 4 Housing Sites’ Survey 2012 4 InOdiham Open Day 5 Preparations towards a neighbourhood development plan 5 Professional guidance 6 Hart Local Plan 6
3. Aims of engagement and consultation 7
4. Overview of engagement and consultation methods 8 Information sharing and consultation methods 9 Summary log of consultation activity 11 Consulting widely 11 Harder-to-reach groups 11 Providing feedback throughout the process 12
5. Developing and testing the options 12 (non-statutory consultation) Raising awareness and understanding the issues 12 Consultation one: scoping policy content (Jan 2015) 13 Consultation two: testing draft policy proposals (May 2015) 15
6. Pre-Submission Consultation (Regulation 14) 16
7. Conclusion 18
Appendices to the Consultation Statement
Appendix 1: Summary Log of Engagement and Consultation Activity 19
Appendix 2: Consultation Evidence File references 30
Appendix 3: Consultation letter to Statutory Bodies (Reg 14) 31
Appendix 4: List of all Consultees 33
Appendix 5: Summary log of Pre-Submission Representations 39 (Regulation 14 Consultation)
Appendix 6: rCOH Pre-Submission (Regulation 14) Report 159
Appendix 7: NPSG Pre-Submission (Regulation 14) Report 166
2
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
1. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION 15 (Neighbourhood Plan Regulations 2012)
1.1 Odiham Parish Council submits its Neighbourhood Plan for Odiham and North Warnborough (NP) to Hart District Council in July 2016 for independent examination.
1.2 This Consultation Statement complies with requirements of Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Plan Regulations and provides the response to Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Plan Regulations (pre-submission statutory consultation). It has been prepared by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) to fulfil the legal obligations of Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012.
1.3 Section 15(2) of Part 5 of the Regulations requires that a Consultation Statement should:
o Contain details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan;
o Explain how they were consulted;
o Summarise the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted;
o Describe how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan.
1.4 This Consultation Statement summarises all statutory and non-statutory consultation undertaken with the community and other relevant statutory bodies and stakeholders in developing the NP. In particular, it describes how concerns have been addressed and what changes have been made to the final NP as a result of statutory pre-submission consultation.
1.5 Changes are included in the NP submitted to the Local Planning Authority which can be cross-referenced to comments received as part of statutory consultation.
1.6 A Consultation Evidence File providing a record of all consultation exercises, comments and feedback accompanies this Consultation Statement in Appendix 2.
Enquiries regarding this Statement should be made to: Stephen Blandford, Chairman NPSG e-mail: [email protected]
3
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
2. BACKGROUND TO CONSULTATION
2.1 In its spring newsletter delivered to all households in the parish in April 2014, Odiham Parish Council asked for volunteers from the community to come forward to help prepare a neighbourhood development plan. (Appendix 2 CEF 1)
2.2 In July 2014, a Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) was formalised, under the auspices of Odiham Parish Council, comprising 17 volunteers from across the parish with various backgrounds, ages and interests, including 2 parish councillors. Fortnightly SG meetings began in the Parish Room. Inevitably during the course of the process, there were some changes in the membership of the SG; and other volunteers joined the wider team.
2.3 In August 2014, the NP area was designated by HDC and initial funding was secured from the OPC. Further funding during the plan came from HDC, the Community Rights Programme and the Community Development Foundation.
2.4 Before work towards a Neighbourhood Plan began in summer 2014, a body of useful material existed from earlier initiatives in the parish and at District level:
Housing sites survey 2012 2.5 In preparing their Local Plan during 2012, HDC made it clear that it was keen for individual parishes to take the lead in defining appropriate sites for housing development to meet district housing allocations for their area. Therefore, OPC surveyed its residents in autumn 2012 on the then SHLAA sites in the parish. This comprised a leaflet with an overview and map posted to every household, supported by information online and in Odiham Library. (Appendix 2 CEF 2)
2.6 At the time, the housing allocation target prescribed by HDC for Odiham parish was 180 houses, of which permission had been granted for 89 and an application was in process for a further 20. Taking into account windfalls, OPC was consulting to find appropriate sites for another 40 houses within the area designated by the NP.
2.7 More than 400 residents responded. However, there was a tendency for Odiham residents to vote for sites in North Warnborough and vice versa. Since there are more Odiham residents (and there were more returns from Odiham) the Parish Council looked for an analysis method which did not simply allow Odiham residents to outvote North Warnborough. The full report is at Appendix 2 CEF 2. OPC was advised by HDC to follow up with a further consultation with recommended options, and started to prepare for this in the autumn of 2013 based on the feedback from residents in the earlier survey. At that point, HDC was advised by their Local
4
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
Plan Inspector that more work on housing numbers was required so OPC postponed these activities until the way forward was clearer.
InOdiham Open Day 2.8 Meanwhile, another body had been exploring views on how the parish should develop. InOdiham is a community interest company comprising retailers, local businesses and interested individuals who are active in organising events within the parish such as the Xmas Extravaganza and Farmers’ Markets. See www.inodiham.co.uk In January 2014, 155 Odiham residents and business people attended an InOdiham event in The Cross Barn and gave their views on several key questions from what they like about Odiham to how it could be improved. A list of comments made, plus an analysis is available at Appendix 2 CEF 3. This information was a useful snapshot of views in the parish before the Neighbourhood Plan began in earnest.
Preparations towards an NP 2.9 Whilst initially Councillors considered it was premature for the parish to start work on a neighbourhood plan, in spring 2014 it was decided that work could begin, running broadly in tandem with Hart’s emerging revised Local Plan. Accordingly, in late spring OPC began the process of seeking volunteers to form a steering group to start work on preparing a neighbourhood development plan. Initially OPC proposed three tangible areas of focus for the NP, and invited their new team of volunteers to ask the community to consider and expand further on these in early engagement during summer 2014:
• Which sites should be built on to accommodate HDC’s target allocation for the area; • What community facilities for sport, recreation and open space should be provided with new housing; and • What could be done to help with affordability and priority for local people.
That said, it was made clear to the public from the outset that nothing was set in stone by way of objectives, vision or detail regarding land use. It was for the community to shape the NP by having their say and making the NPSG aware of their views at each stage in the process.
5
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
Professional guidance 2.10 Throughout this process, the NPSG has been guided by comprehensive documentation available from bodies such as such as the Department for Communities and Local Government, Locality and Planning Aid England.
2.11 In addition, in June 2014 Towns Alive was commissioned to provide professional guidance during the early stages, including a draft strategy for engagement and consultation and a comprehensive handbook on suitable methods, with technical advice to be provided by planning consultants, rCOH.
2.12 rCOH is a firm with proven experience of helping deliver neighbourhood plans including in parishes where there is no approved Local Plan. rCOH became ONWNP’s principal advisers when Towns Alive ceased operating in autumn 2014.
2.13 Following a tailored workshop with the NPSG, these advisers were instrumental in helping to analyse feedback and make recommendations on plan content. As a result, the NPSG was able to prepare a draft vision and outline objectives for the community to consider by January 2015. As well as providing the NPSG with regular guidance by email and telephone, rCOH later helped analyse pre-submission feedback from statutory consultees and landowners/agents in December 2015 and advised on necessary changes to the draft NP before submission to Hart District Council.
Hart Local Plan 2.14 Development of a neighbourhood development plan for Odiham and North Warnborough became a high priority in 2014 in the absence of an approved Local Plan for the district of Hart. While the latter is still to be completed, the NPSG has maintained a dialogue throughout this process with Hart District Council to ensure that the ONWNP is in line with HDC’s emerging strategy.
2.15 Although Hart’s Local Plan has not yet reached its Regulation 18 stage, it is clear from documentation published in late 2015 and early 2016 that HDC is using a working assumption of 300 new homes to come from greenfield sites beyond the TBHSPA zone of influence (which includes this parish). Since this number is common to all the spatial options it is consulting on to deliver the level of housing growth, it is far less likely to change than other parts of the District as the Local Plan proceeds, no matter what decisions are made by HDC on its housing distribution strategy.
6
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
3. AIMS OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION
3.1 The aims of the consultation process for ONWNP have been:
TO CONSULT MANY To involve as many of the community as possible throughout all consultation stages of Plan development so that it was shaped by the views of local people and other stakeholders from the outset;
TO CONSULT WIDELY To engage with and listen to as wide a range of people as possible including hard-to- reach groups, using a wide range of approaches and communication and consultation methods;
TO CONSULT AT THE RIGHT TIME To schedule consultation at critical points in the process when important decisions needed to be taken;
TO CONSULT WELL To ensure that all events and communications were of high quality, were imaginative and well organised;
TO KEEP INFORMED To keep the community informed of progress and the results of consultation throughout the process.
3.2 From the outset, the NPSG has been influenced by the maxim that the more imaginative and creative the engagement, the more interested and involved people will be, so ultimately making the consultation more robust.
3.3 It is considered that the level of consultation has exceeded that required by the regulations not least because it has included voluntary in addition to statutory consultations. Evidence is provided in the Consultation Evidence File (CEF 1-24) listed in Appendix 2. This material is also available to view via http://onwardplan.com (refer to Submission Plan link).
7
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
4. OVERVIEW OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION METHODS
4.1 Consultation specifically relating to the ONWNP began with raising awareness of OPC’s intention to prepare an NP and its purpose.
4.2 As the parish of Odiham includes the two distinctive historic villages of Odiham and North Warnborough plus RAF Odiham and outlying settlements, the NPSG recognised the importance of inclusivity. As a result, the plan has been called the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan (ONWNP) rather than Odiham Neighbourhood Plan.
4.3 Soon afterwards the term OnwardPlan was coined and used across all publicity. This name has been a useful shorthand uniting both villages and surrounding settlements incorporating O+NW in an inclusive, positive and concise way. It was used with the existing logo of Odiham Parish Council to show parentage and to be distinct from any Local Plan consultations running in parallel.
4.4 During this process the NPSG volunteers have been contactable both via OPC clerk and office, councillors, and directly via OnwardPlan website and email. Wearing recognisable OnwardPlan badges with their names, members have been visible and accessible to the public at all key engagement events. Their names have been accessible via the website, NPSG minutes as well as identifiable in photographs online and in mailings, web and social media posts. Some members of the NPSG have also been captured in ad hoc group photographs and individually throughout this Consultation Statement and its appendices.
4.5 Although Community Engagement was the responsibility of each member of the NPSG, the core CE team included seasoned professionals with relevant creative and analytical skills: consultants experienced in marketing and communications, people & change, sustainability plus a well organised administrator and a technology expert whose photography was central to all campaigns. For example, at the outset a vintage bus photographed in Odiham High St photo-shopped with the destination OnwardPlan was a colourful vehicle for the NSPG to capture public interest and imagination.
4.6 Frequent and robust consultation on land use has maximised the opportunities for those living, working and running a business in Odiham and North Warnborough to shape their final ONWNP. Indeed, since June 2014, members of the NPSG have welcomed about a thousand people through the doors at dedicated NP events; analysed around 1,300 survey responses
8
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
with over 2,500 free format comments; and processed 4,000+ post-its. That is not to mention countless one-to-one conversations with residents and stakeholders. This level of engagement compares strongly with other housing-related consultations both in the parish, including the previous housing site survey in 2012, and Hart District Council’s questionnaires on Local Plan Strategic Housing Options both in autumn 2014 and in spring 2016.
Information sharing and consultation methods 4.7 Many methods were employed to engage and consult the community on land use matters during the evolution of the ONWNP:
• Regular updates at meetings of Odiham Parish Council meetings. See www.odiham.org.uk ; • Minutes of SG meetings via www.onwardplan.com/library/steering-group-meeting-minutes ; • Stands at parish events; • Engagement meetings with community groups; • Posters and sandwich boards, from A4 to A1, indoor, outdoor and roadside; • Leaflets through letterboxes; • OnwardPlan generic business cards; • Exhibitions; • TV slideshow at events; • Questionnaires; • Parish hubs (with leaflets, questionnaires and letterbox for replies and Pre-Sub Plan); • Interactive workshops; • Competitions with Amazon voucher prizes (e.g. Children’s Art, Youth and Business Survey); • Local press; • Monthly entries in All Saints’ Church Parish News; • Presentations/Q&A at AGMs of OPC, Odiham Society and Greywell Parish Council; • Lapel stickers, before Pre-Submission; • Social Media: Facebook and Twitter; • Website www.onwardplan.com
9
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
4.8 A dedicated website for the ONWNP was launched in autumn 2014. As the existing OPC website was unable to accommodate ONWNP initiatives, a bespoke new website was launched at the Odiham Extravaganza Nov 2014, becoming a one-stop shop for everything related to the emerging NP. Given the plan’s lengthy official title (Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan), the term OnwardPlan was soon adopted consistently across engagement and consultation campaigns, online and social media and was quickly embraced by the community. See www.onwardplan.com, links to this site from www.odiham.org.uk, examples above or at Appendix 2 CEF 4.
4.9 Around the same time, a presence on Facebook (FB) and Twitter was launched to stimulate interest and involvement particularly among younger members of the community. E.g. the Robert May’s School OnwardPlan FB challenge in November 2014. In June 2016, OnwardPlan had nearly 140 followers on Twitter and over 100 on FB including InOdiham and MOO (Mums of Odiham).
4.10 It has been helpful that OPC introduced its own FB page in August 2015. Since then, OnwardPlan has benefited from partnering and the wider scope and different reach that OPC’s FB page has generated since with its 500 followers by July 2016.
4.11 E-mail has been an invaluable tool in this electronically-active community. Between late 2014 and July 2016 OnwardPlan sent around 50 direct mailings using Mailchimp software to residents and stakeholders, as evidenced in (Appendix 2, CEF 5). Interestingly, nearly two thirds of the over sixties who responded in writing or electronically to the May 2015 consultation provided an email address; as did over half the over eighties.
4.12 Other local organisations were helpful in disseminating information about ONWNP through their well-established e-networks eg. Neighbourhood Watch, all three schools, RAF ‘FYI’ dependents’ network, and The Odiham Society.
4.13 From December 2014 to May 2016 there were over 250 emails received at [email protected] from residents and stakeholders largely with enquiries or comments. These have either been noted and taken into consideration in the NP’s development or been superseded by events or results of consultations. Each email received an automated thank- you and the contents were noted by the Chairman and appropriate members of the NPSG. In addition, more than 120 bespoke replies were sent.
10
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
Summary log of consultation activity 4.14 As Appendix 1 shows, there have been four key stages in the engagement and consultation: Raising awareness and understanding the issues (Non-statutory consultation June - Dec 2014) First consultation (C1): scoping policy content (Non-statutory consultation January 2015) Second consultation (C2): testing draft policies (Non-statutory consultation May 2015) Formal Pre-submission consultation (Statutory consultation 14 October 2015 - 30 November 2015)
Consulting widely 4.15 The prime objective has been to consult extensively and as widely as possible with the community, businesses and local organisations on a wide range of land use issues that will influence the well-being of all people living in Odiham and North Warnborough along with the sustainability and character of these villages into the future. It has been a priority to ensure that the policies contained in the final ONWNP reflect as far as possible the views of the majority of residents who responded to the consultation (Appendix 2).
4.16 The NPSG developed a comprehensive e-mail database of around 800 email addresses of individuals who asked to be kept informed; plus a stakeholder map of around 140 bodies such as community groups, businesses, interest groups and schools for use during key stages of consultation. During the development of the Plan, Hart District Council, Hampshire County Council and RAF Odiham were consulted as well as other bodies such as Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. Some members of nearby parish councils and other stakeholders also attended consultation events, in particular from Greywell.
Harder-to-reach groups 4.17 The NPSG was mindful of the need to communicate with some sectors of the community that may have been harder to engage, such as the elderly, businesses, young families and youth. It is for this reason that extensive consultations were carried out on at least thirty separate occasions prior to the statutory consultation, taking the discussion to many diverse groups, rather than expecting the community to come to them to find out more about the ONWNP.
11
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
Providing feedback throughout the process 4.18 From summer 2014 and until options were finalised for the draft plan prior to statutory consultation, the public was able to submit queries and suggestions to the NPSG regarding land use via letters, e-mails as well as in person. Feedback was available at all times on the progress of the plan, through the OnwardPlan website, the parish council website, social media, e-mail communication, and press. For example, visitors to consultation events in May 2015 were able to see a storyboard of panels from January 2015 marked with results, so demonstrating the evolution of the emerging plan. e.g. Appendix 2 CEF 6.
5. DEVELOPING AND TESTING THE OPTIONS
5.1 This section explains the evolution of Plan content in line with community views on land use through the four key phases of engagement and consultation:
Raising awareness and understanding the issues (June - Dec 2014)
5.2 Starting in June 2014, the team engaged face-to-face with several hundred local residents, manning an ONWNP stand at seven high profile and very different parish events.
5.3 In line with advice from Consultation Consultant from Towns Alive, the aim of this period was to raise awareness of the intention to produce an NP. 86% of the 238 residents who left their details endorsed this initiative and its proposed main focus: housing sites, affordable housing and additional amenities. Appendix 2 CEF 7 provides an overview of feedback from these residents via printed postcard plus photographs from these events. Visitors to the NP stand were invited to put a sticker on an A1 map of the parish, showing where they live, also shown in CEF 7.
5.4 In October 2014 two members of the NPSG who were experienced change consultants ran a visioning exercise to collate feedback from fellow members and record information gleaned informally from engagement so far. (Appendix 2 CEF 8)
5.5 At the Odiham Xmas Extravaganza and Robert May’s Xmas Fair in late 2014, engagement stepped up a gear. As well as introducing the OnwardPlan website and logo, the team trialed a post-it format for generating feedback using four key open questions. Results are recorded in Appendix 2 CEF 9.
5.6 During the autumn and winter, members of the SG also met representatives from a variety of interested local organisations, as diverse as The Canal Society and Odiham and Greywell Cricket Club. (Appendix 2 CEF 10)
12
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
5.7 Through postcard feedback as well as hundreds of conversations in this exploratory six months, the NPSG became aware of several recurring themes relating to land use:
Concern over unbridled or inappropriate development that could change the village feel of the parish; Importance of green space; Importance of heritage assets; Importance of maintaining gaps between villages; Shortage of housing, especially small dwellings for small families, individuals, downsizers In particular, a shortage of affordable dwellings for local people, their children and key workers; A care home could be useful; Desire for more parking especially free parking in Odiham village centre; Sustainability of vibrant High St; Impact of new development on flooding and drainage; Concern about infrastructure as housing numbers grow (healthcare, education, utilities).
5.8 Then guided by specialist Planning Consultants, rCOH, in autumn 2014 the NPSG set about assessing and shaping feedback so far into an outline Vision, structured task areas and key issues for further consultation: Environment, Housing, Amenities, Village Centre, Green Spaces. A working party for each was created, plus for Community Engagement and Project Management.
Consultation One: Scoping policy content (Early 2015)
5.9 In January 2015, nearly 500 residents attended a first round of consultation dedicated to the Neighbourhood Plan initiative (C1). They contributed around 4,000 comments at four different venues. Details of publicity (CEF 11), content (CEF 12) and results (CEF 13) are recorded in Appendix 2.
5.10 In summary, over 90% of respondents reacted positively to the emerging draft vision, which has subsequently been reflected in policies in the resulting plan. The preservation of heritage, including conservation areas and views/landscape was considered a priority. The open spaces most valued by the community were the Canal, the Deer Park, Odiham Common, Broad Oak Common and Dunleys Hill.
5.11 ‘As far as possible, development should not impact detrimentally on conservation areas, listed buildings and views valued by the community.’ That was considered the most important criterion for assessing housing sites put forward by landowners for development. The second was that ‘valued green spaces should be retained’. 13
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
5.12 The majority of respondents favoured small housing sites (up to 30 dwellings), followed by those preferring a mix of small and medium sites (up to 60 dwellings). Affordable homes were considered a priority; likewise 2 bedroom houses. There was more support for more low cost market housing than provision by Housing Associations. The majority of respondents agreed with the need for a residential/care home.
5.13 There was strong endorsement for more cycle paths, and for better maintenance of footpaths. As for existing facilities, improving the Canal/Wharf area attracted most support, plus refurbishing the public toilets in King Street. A large number said that they would like short term parking to be free of charge; and many said that they would like additional parking close to the centre of Odiham (though this consultation period coincided with unprecedented demand during substantial construction work on the High St).
5.14 Results were published systematically (February-April 2015) via the Parish News, by emailing the growing database of interested residents and stakeholders, as well as via online posts and social media. Information was packaged and disseminated in palatable bite-sized chunks in order to keep ONWNP front of mind among the community during the weeks between consultation phases. (Appendix 2 CEF 13)
5.15 In Spring 2015, extra efforts were planned to engage harder-to-reach groups such as business people (Appendix CEF 14), teenagers (CEF 15), children and young families (CEF 16) e.g. via surveys, interactive workshops, a children’s art competition as well as on Facebook and Twitter.
14
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
Consultation two: Testing draft policy proposals (May 2015)
5.16 There was a second non-statutory round of public consultation (C2) in May 2015 when, having digested community views from the previous consultation, emerging draft proposals and policies were published. This consultation stage was widely publicised via posters, articles, online, email and social media, facilitated also by 5 information hubs around the Parish providing hard copy of proposals and related information. (See Appendix 2 CEF 17 and 18)
5.17 Over 700 people completed a questionnaire on the draft plan, two thirds online; and more than 300 attended the supporting events alongside. Contributors also generated more than 1,600 free format comments. Appendix 2 CEF 19 shows the detailed results, summarized here by reference in each case (where appropriate) to the response to the specific question:
Two thirds of respondents agreed with a policy to develop the 9 small-to-medium sized sites proposed for housing; For land adjacent to Crownfields (NP Policy 2 vii), the majority of respondents preferred the combination of a high dependency nursing/care home and estimated 30 dwellings as against 60 dwellings and no care home; Over 80% agreed that approximately 50% of new houses built in the life of the Plan should be 1-2 beds; Regarding affordable housing, a resounding 95% of respondents would like a proportion to be specifically reserved for people with a parish connection; Each of the six sites proposed for potential designation as Local Green Spaces gained support in this consultation; • Regarding the Deer Park, which was the community’s second most valued green space in C1 consultations, two thirds of respondents at C2 were ‘not open’ to the owner’s vision to reinstate a deer park, a proposal that included some housing development. This survey question generated the largest number of free format comments (333); • All four sites suggested for some additional parking gained support, as did all the infrastructure aims proposed.
5.18 Other key points emerged from this consultation:
There was a perception among residents of North Warnborough that there would be more houses built there in the course of the plan than in Odiham. However, it is noteworthy that the sites proposed at that time in Odiham had greater capacity (87 houses) compared to the 39 for North Warnborough.
15
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
There were concerns from residents near the Crownfields site about the development of land adjacent to them. The NPSG reviewed all comments carefully, sought to include safeguards including a limit on the height of development, views and footpaths among others and consequently adjusted proposals for this site, which had already gained majority support during this consultation.
Relating to the Hook Road, North Warnborough (NP Policy 2vi), the draft plan proposed a less intensive use of the site than is put forward in the SHLAA, taking account of concerns expressed regarding the Basingstoke Canal SSSI, and two conservation areas (Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area and North Warnborough Conservation Area.
Regarding Dunleys Hill (NP Policy 2v), many objectors appeared to assume that the current Local Gap designation would disappear should housing development be allowed, whilst the information in the consultation was clear. This misunderstanding was corrected by better explanation of the proposals in the pre-submission plan. i.e. that the proposals for this site include a housing development on a small part of the site only with the remainder retained as local gap and a public local green space. Once this dual concept had been more clearly explained, considerably fewer objections were received at pre-submission.
5.19 Given this feedback and other considerations, amendments were made to the content of the draft NP in summer 2015 ahead of the pre-submission phase. Evidence of pre- submission publicity can be found in Appendix 2 CEF 20. The pre-submission NP, including a section entitled ‘Community Views’ and supporting documentation is at Appendix 2 CEF 21.
6. PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION (REGULATION 14)
6.1 The statutory pre-submission consultation was undertaken by OPC in the period 14 October to 30 November 2015. The process was actioned by the Clerk to OPC by letter and email, supported by members of the NPSG. (Appendix 3)
6.2 The publication of the Pre-Submission NP and how to make representation was publicized among individuals and bodies with an interest in the parish. These included residents and stakeholders including landowners/agents, as well as statutory consultees identified by HDC or known to the NPSG. (See also Appendix 4 plus Appendix 2 CEF 20 and examples of press coverage at CEF 22).
16
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
6.3 All feedback gathered was collated onto a spreadsheet (Appendix 5). A summary log without names and addresses was published online in January 2016.
6.4 36 representations (11%) came from statutory consultees, landowners or their agents. These were reviewed by neighbourhood planning consultants rCOH as well as the NPSG. These representations raised a series of issues that were not unexpected for a neighbourhood plan seeking to establish a firm spatial plan and to make site specific land allocations in accordance with that plan, but without the benefit of an up-to-date Local Plan. rCOH’s report on representations from statutory consultees and landowners/agents is at App 6. Copies of the representations from statutory bodies, landowners, agents and other stakeholders can also be found on http://onwardplan.com/presub/.
6.5 Over 70% (236/333) of responses were from individual residents, including many positive comments showing their appreciation. Members of the NPSG took the lead on carefully reviewing and assessing comments from residents. Most comments were supportive of the NP overall; some made specific comments for or against individual proposals. Residents’ comments generally showed they cared a great deal about land use in their parish, were well informed and engaged with the process, and demonstrated that they had been able to make a contribution to the development of the plan.
6.6 As might be expected, feedback from residents was not without some criticism and occasional misunderstanding. Indeed, it has sometimes been challenging to reconcile the disappointment of a minority with the will of the majority. Equally to be expected, as it comes to fruition through the consultation process, is that any neighbourhood plan is unlikely to achieve unanimous agreement. As such, each relevant comment amounting to a concern has been noted and considered carefully against NPPF guidelines as indicated below. Appendix 5 shows how relevant concerns have been addressed appropriately resulting in a number of detailed modifications in the plan.
6.7 18% (61/333) of comments came from residents of the neighbouring parish of Greywell and those comments were unanimously supportive of a Local Gap between their parish and North Warnborough.
6.8 Representations were considered against the relevant NPPF criteria for their potential impact on the draft plan and potential need for changes to be incorporated into the submission draft. A record of the input to an updated submission NP in line with Regulation 14 consultation process is recorded at Appendix 5. Where appropriate, changes were then made to the plan which has been updated from its pre-submission status.
‘Odiham Parish Council and its neighbourhood planning team have worked hard and consulted widely with residents to progress the Neighbourhood Plan. This is a transparent, democratic process where every resident has had the chance to comment and will be able to vote shortly.’
Chairman, The Odiham Society The Odiham Society Journal, Autumn 2015
17
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
6.9 The ONWNP was then finalised for submission, together with completion of its Basic Conditions Statement, this Consultation Statement and the necessary amendments of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Habitat Regulations Assessment, the Site Assessment and the Local Green Space evidence base reports.
6.10 In May 2016, the NPSG decided that it was appropriate to draw the community’s attention to two matters: firstly, the uncertainty as to likely housing numbers which might be required of the parish under the emerging HDC Local Plan; and secondly, changed advice on whether the residential care home included in the development proposals for the land adjacent to Crownfields would count towards new housing numbers. Following consultation with OPC, the NPSG requested additional feedback from the community as to whether or not the community wished the NP to progress to Submission, notwithstanding these recent developments.
6.11 In response to a YES/NO question, 85% of 472 completed responses confirmed that they wanted ‘the NP to be submitted at the earliest opportunity despite the uncertainty over housing numbers and the likelihood that the Care Home does not count towards those numbers.’ 84% of these came from residents on the parish, of whom 85% supported submission.
6.12 Odiham Parish Council subsequently reviewed and endorsed the neighbourhood development plan at a meeting in July 2016 for submission to Hart District Council.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 In accordance with Section 15(2) Part 5 of Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012, this Consultation Statement details who was consulted and how. It summarises the main issues and concerns raised, as evidenced in the appendices; and describes how they have been considered and, where appropriate, addressed in the resulting plan.
7.2 Importantly, the parish of Odiham has defined a plan that has been shaped by the views of the majority of the community which have crystallised during considerable public engagement and consultation since summer 2014.
7.3 Indeed, throughout this process, the level of public interest and engagement in the plan has been outstanding. This is demonstrated by the evidence gathered and made available in the Consultation Evidence Files at Appendix 2. The website www.onwardplan.com plus OnwardPlan Facebook and Twitter feeds provide further insight.
7.4 As a result, Odiham Parish Council believes that it has done all that is required of the Regulations to develop an NP which is fully compliant.
7.5 Following examination by Hart District Council, another 6-week consultation period and then scrutiny by an independent Examiner, OPC anticipates that there will be a significant majority voting ‘yes’ to adopt the plan at referendum.
18
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
Date Consultation approach How publicised? Who was engaged? Outcomes
PHASE ONE: RAISING AWARENESS of the intention to make a NP and understanding the issues
June- A Neighbourhood Plan stall was present Parish News, posters plus Many hundreds of SG raised awareness of OPC’s intention to Sept at a diverse range of important community InOdiham, clubs and people who live and make a Neighbourhood Plan by engaging with 2014 events in the parish calendar, chosen to groups and via the publicity work in the parish, plus hundreds of the public and by offering an reach a wide audience: machines of various event visitors from surrounding explanatory card. Tested community support Bands and Booze in the Bury (Sat 28 organisers. parishes and beyond. for the suggestion both in conversation and via June 12-6pm); written feedback; listened to many hundreds of All Saints’ Church Fete (Sat 12 July pm); people and their views on ONW today and Odiham and Greywell Cricket Club’s concerns for the future. Many visitors to the Centenary Match (Thurs 31 July pm); stands placed a sticker on a parish map to Italian Market (Bank Holiday Monday 25 show where they lived – demonstrating a wide Aug 10am-3pm); span across the villages. Over 200 visitors to Odiham Society Heritage Weekend (13- the NP stands gave written feedback and their 14 September); details to be kept informed of progress via A6 white postcard (App 2 CEF7).
2 – 18 Visioning development included a Coordinated by email and rCOH consultants and This exercise resulted in a first draft vision, Oct workshop for SG members with rCOH telephone. SG members. which was reviewed by the SG and put forward 2014 facilitators to review the spatial plan and to the community for their initial feedback compare notes on the first impressions of during January 2015. rCOH and the insights gleaned by the SG This phase also identified and honed many of so far. Afterwards a draft vision was the recurring themes, which underpinned the proposed by rCOH. content of exhibition panels and questions Meanwhile SG members had also asked to the community at events in January undertaken a brainstorming exercise (C1); and subsequent policy development. using post-it notes to amass input so far (App 2 CEF8) on what was good/bad about the parish, and how it could improve in future. This was based on first hand conversations with many hundreds of people who live or work in the parish during engagement at diverse community events throughout summer and autumn 2014.
19
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
6 Oct Seized the opportunity to engage with Ad hoc conversation. Head and Deputy Head Learned that RMS may have to expand. The 2014 senior management of Robert May’s of Robert May’s School Head was happy to work alongside the School following their contribution to OPC and two members of the ONWNP to get the best outcome for the village meeting. SG (one an OPC and use of community facilities. They are councillor). holding a Christmas Fair on 29 November and would be willing for the ONWNPSG to have a presence there. Agreed to follow-up. 8 Oct Informal meeting, Officers’ Mess, RAF Organised via telephone NP Coordinator of Made first contact with RAF Odiham to explain 2014 Odiham and email Community about the intention to make a NP; explored Engagement met RAF possibilities to collaborate; agreed how best to Odiham Engagement proceed formally. Officer 31 Oct Soft launch and testing of OnwardPlan Via Parish News, email to SG members, website Created a professional-looking platform to 2014 name and website www.onwardplan.com growing database of designer Agent 8, PD inform the community and other stakeholders residents and stakeholders. Group design and print. about the ONWNP and keep them aware of 3m outdoor banner, progress throughout the development of the OnwardPlan business plan. Initiative was well received and instilled cards. confidence among the community. Autumn AGM North Warnborough Village Hall, Via email to OPC clerk. Member of SG/OPC Explained about the intention to make a NP, 2014 Parish Rooms councillor and trustees process and benefits. of North Warnborough Gained better understanding of their Village Hall challenges and aspirations for the future. Encouraged trustees and contacts to take part in forthcoming consultations. Nov Questionnaires to local Sent to Clubs SG member Provided useful insight into voluntary sector 2014 clubs/organisations Baker Hall Committee activity in the Parish; an understanding of their Cricket Club workings and aspirations. Cycle Club Bowls Club 18 Nov Meeting at Robert May’s School Arranged by email RMS Head plus 2014 members of the SG. Gained some insight into potential need for expansion, though no details yet. Funds permitting, RMS keen to expand and share facilities with community e.g. Sports hall, crèche etc.
Agreed to collaborate with Head of Geography on an event tailored to students. Future liaison agreed with Head or Deputy.
20
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
20 Nov Meeting at Welfare and Community Arranged by email OC PMS, Engagement Agreed best way to reach families and 2014 Centre, RAF Odiham 3pm Officer and staff of personnel via Thurs am event at WACC; email WACC plus SG via FYI network; letterbox leaflets delivered by Chairman and RAF. Established dialogue between OC PMS Coordinator of NP CE. and NPSG. 24 Nov Meeting with agent (JB Planning) on Arranged by email NP Steering Explained NP timetable and discussed 2014 Dunleys Hill /SHLAA site 65 (Policy 2v) Group/Housing possibilities for the site. JB Planning 27 Nov Stand at Odiham Xmas Extravaganza Annual event publicised People who live and Public launch of OnwardPlan name with 2014 organised by InOdiham 5.30-9pm widely throughout work in the parish, plus banner, new material and generic business community via InOdiham surrounding area; cards with details of new website and Odiham Parish Council members of the Steering www.onwardplan.com plus Facebook and e.g. Parish News, posters, Group. Twitter. roadside signs, leaflets, Raised further community awareness and press plus OnwardPlan understanding of the NP process; and grew website further the SG’s understanding of recurring themes both through 1-1 listening and by trialling a format for gathering input: 4 open questions to generate post-it responses. (App 2 CEF 9) Also recorded where stand visitors lived using Xmas stickers on a second parish map.
Sat 29 Stand at Robert May’s School Xmas Fair, Arranged by email. Stand manned by Raised awareness of the intention to make a Nov organised by the PTA with stands run by Event publicised via RMS several members of the NP and explain benefits; raised awareness of 2014 students as well as charity and newsletter, Parish Mag, SG plus young volunteer website and OnwardPlan social media via commercial stall holders. posters, plus OnwardPlan (ex RMS now Alton OnwardPlan Facebook Challenge + prize; website College). Attended by gathered feedback on 4 open questions via RMS pupils aged 11-16 post its (App 2 CEF 9); recorded where stand years, staff, families, visitors lived using Xmas stickers on the friends and members of second parish map. the wider public in ONW and wider catchment area (including Greywell, Hook, Long Sutton, South Warnborough, Hartley Wintney, Upton Grey).
21
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
From Over 250 ad hoc exchanges in and out of Email Members of the SG and Received and shared information on a wide Dec 14 [email protected] members of the range of matters that helped inform and through community and other engage interested parties and the SG in the out (to stakeholders including preparation of the Plan. Submis landowners, their sion) agents, and community groups.
4 Dec Meeting with Bowls Club Arranged by phone Members of SG, 3 NP process explained. Gained insight into 2014 committee members of current issues and aspirations of the Club. Bowls Club Encouraged engagement in NP process.
5 Dec Meeting with Hart DC Initial liaison meeting with NP Steering Group and Question and answer session covering many 2014 Hart Hart Planning/Daryl topics within NP process. Will help inform Phillips development of Plan.
18 Dec Meeting with Hart DC Initial NP overview meeting Daryl Phillips – Hart, Further questions and answers concerning 2014 with Chief Executive to representatives from NP housing numbers and NP process. Will help discuss resources to be Steering Group and Neil inform development of Plan provided by Hart Homer from rCOH
Jan Meeting and phone call with Buryfields Arranged by phone Headteachers of Raised awareness of Neighbourhood Plan, and 2015 and Mayhill Schools. Buryfields Infant and reached agreement from Heads to publicise via Mayhill Junior Schools emails to parents ahead of consultations. Mayhill explained school had unused space for expansion if needed. Encouraged engagement in NP process.
9 Jan SG Chairman addressed Odiham Society Publicised by OdSoc to Around 50+ OdSoc Resulted in encouraging feedback from OdSoc 2015 at the Cross Barn at AGM. Gave overview around 400 members via members Chairman and members, many of whom attended NP and update on the Plan's progress so far posters, and emails. SG member. consultation events later in January. and lively Q&A session. First airing of exhibition panels with a draft vision for ONW, plus leaflets promoting four engagement events in January, and ONW business cards promoting new website and social media.
22
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
PHASE TWO:
SCOPING POLICY CONTENT
13-24 Consultation Phase One (C1) Interactive 2,100 A5 leaflets were 491 people attended Resounding endorsement of the proposed draft Jan exhibitions on different dates, days, times distributed to households including residents of vision. Through nearly 4,000 free format 2015 at venues across the parish: Tues 13 Jan throughout the parish by ONW and some from comments in response to key questions, the 6-9pm, The Old School, London Rd, members of the SG and other parishes, NPSG gained valuable data to make progress Odiham; RAF Odiham; Posts on retailers/businesses, on proposals towards policies in all task areas; Sat 17 Jan 10am -4pm Cross Barn, OnwardPlan website representatives of and identified aspects for further research and Odiham; plus direct marketing community groups, testing. Thurs 22 Jan 10am-2pm WACC, RAF campaign via Mailchimp councillors from Hart Odiham; email to database of 344 District and Hampshire Sun 24 Jan, 10am-4pm, North residents and stakeholders; County Council. Warnborough Village Hall. emails via community groups, emails via schools Materials included Vision panels, and RAF network; FB and exhibition panels for each task area, TV Twitter, posters, roadside powerpoint presentation on signs, 3m external banner neighbourhood planning, names and outside venues, Parish photos of Steering Group members and News, sandwich board at activities so far. Friday market
3 Feb Meeting with Cricket Club Arranged by phone 2 members of SG, They explained the history of club, current 2015 Treasurer of Cricket issues and future aspirations, including an Club extra pitch ideally. Explained NP process and encouraged future engagement.
4 Feb Meeting with Odiham Consolidated By email Members of OCC OCC explained its role and future aspirations in 2015 Charities (OCC) committee, providing affordable housing for local people. representatives of NPSG.
March- Notification to landowners of potential By letter to owners/agents From Chairman NPSG Landowners were made aware of potential 2015 – LGS designation. to owners of potential LGS designation in the emerging NP. May LGS sites. 2015
23
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
16 Two interactive workshops at Robert Publicised by posters at 165 Year 10 and Year Raised awareness of the NP among this group March May's School in a Ready, Steady, Plan school, web, and social 11 Geography students 2015 format in two sessions (1240-1330 and media. Student and staff and their teachers plus and their families, encouraging future 1330 -1420) including a written attendance was organised NPSG members. 26 engagement in forthcoming consultations. questionnaire and 2x £25 Amazon by Head of Geography students were from the Students learned about Neighbourhood vouchers for the most thoughtful answers. following earlier parish and the Planning generally and in Hart (Local Plan, (App 2 CEF 15) collaboration between 2 remainder from the housing development), and in ONW, including members of the Steering wider catchment area sustainability; quick insight into planning as a Group and RMS Head. (including Hook, Hartley career from an SG member; and all took part in Wintney, Winchfield, a short paper survey so that the SG could gain Long Sutton, South a better insight into what is important to this Warnborough.) age group to inform the emerging plan. Results were publicised in RMS newsletter to parents, in the Parish News, online and via e- mailshot: 18 Meeting with Hart DC To discuss Hart affordable Hart Housing, OCC, Cllr. Valuable advice given by Hart with regard to March housing policy and a Ken Crookes, members Housing Mix, Affordable Housing, Windfalls, 2015 possible future means for of NPSG. Local Green Spaces, Care Home that helped securing a proportion of inform the content of NP. affordable housing for local people April Before putting draft plan proposals out to Arranged by phone or Owner and/or Agents of Explored the inclusion of these sites in the draft 2015 residents, land owners were notified email. sites 2v, 2.vi, 2.vii in plan including some community benefits. where specific proposals related to their meetings with NPSG Subsequently the views of residents were sites. members followed up by sought on these sites as part of the C2 letter and email. consultation in May 2015.
9 April Meeting with Hart DC To discuss initial draft NP Hart Planning, and Draft Plan was presented and views of Hart 2015 policies representatives of NP sought. Some changes to Plan necessary to steering group ensure it is in line with HDC policies. List of statutory consultees will be advised by HDC.
13 April Meeting with agent and developer about To discuss potential options JB Planning, Gladedale NP process explained. Developers explained 2015 Dunleys Hill/SHLAA 65 (Policy 2 v) for the site following public devs. & members of that owner is amenable to develop a portion of consultation events NPSG. the site and make over remaining land to Parish Council for Public Open Space. Developer to produce rough outline of their proposal.
24
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
13 April Meeting with landowner of land adjacent To explain NP process and Landowner and NP process explained. Landowner explained 2015 to Crownfields /SHLAA 327 (Policy 2 vii) timetable and potential members of NPSG. background to the availability of land. options for the site following Landowner agreed to work with agent to public consultation events. produce proposal for residential development and a care home. 22 April Presentation by SG Chairman on the Organised by the Deputy Councillors from OPC, Informed the audience of ONWNP progress. 2015 progress of the NP at Odiham Parish Clerk and publicised on Hart DC and Hampshire Promoted forthcoming consultation events in Council’s AGM at Mayhill School. Parish Council website and County Council plus May in conversation and via leaflets on seats. parish news and members of the Odiham Explained why the NP is important and why afterwards: and North Warnborough everyone should get involved. Contributed to a community SG good turnout at May's C2 events and good Chairman and member response rate to the questionnaire. of the NPSG. 23 April Meeting with Landowners and By email/telephone. Landowner and NP process explained. Access and housing 2015 representatives to discuss options for land members of NPSG. numbers discussed. Helped to inform at Albion Yard (NP Policy 2iv) parameters for site.
23 Apr Meeting at Robert May’s School Arranged by email RMS Head plus member Confirmed imminent school expansion plans 2015 of the NPSG. due to increased demand and that these would mainly affect the land of SHLAA57 which had been safeguarded under DEV19 for the school. Confirmed that current sports facilities were fully utilized by community when available and there was no spare capacity. Confirmed parking and access improvements would be managed within existing school footprint
PHASE THREE: TESTING DRAFT POLICIES
24 April Scheduled to coincide with a Fun Run Arranged internally within Members of the NPSG SG members learned that most parents had pm attended by parents, leaflets were the SG by email interacting with parents already received a leaflet and questionnaire, distributed at the school gates of and grandparents of intended to respond or had already or planned Buryfields and Mayhill Schools. This was school age children. to attend the events. As a result, the team was a second more colourful print run confident that this group had been given every promoting loudly May consultation events opportunity and encouragement to attend C2 directly to this busy target group. events or respond in other ways.
25
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
9-17 Second NP consultation (C2) at 3 venues Explanatory leaflet with 339 attended including 711 questionnaire responses generated data to May across parish on different dates and proposals map and 4-page residents of ONW and inform the Pre-Submission Plan. A majority of 2015 times: questionnaire hand some from neighbouring respondents supported: delivered to 2,100 parishes, businesses, Sat 9 May 10am-3pm, Mayhill School, households in the parish representatives of the 9 sites proposed for housing; Odiham; including 400 RAF community groups, prioritising small dwellings; Sat 16 May 10am-1pm (check times), quarters. Consultation and other stakeholders, and affordable homes; Cross Barn, Odiham; events publicised via landowners and agents, housing plus a high dependency care county, district and home on land next to Crownfields; Parish News, Sunday 17 May 2-5pm (check times), parish councillors. the 6 LGS proposed; North Warnborough Village Hall. press, community networks all four suggestions for additional Interactive exhibition plus revised vision; (eg. Neighbourhood Watch, parking; proposals map and questionnaire via schools, OdSoc). online all other infrastructure aims. SurveyMonkey and paper copy hand- and social media. delivered to all households in the parish A majority of respondents were not open to the with an explanatory leaflet. Additional land owner’s vision to reinstate a deer park and copies available for the wider community include some housing on the Deer Park. at hubs throughout the parish plus letterboxes for posting questionnaire Appendix 2 CEF 19 responses. (Appendix 2 CEF17 and 18) 26 May Presentation opportunity at Greywell Invitation by email; Members of Greywell Provided update on NP progress in particular 2015 Parish Council AGM publicised within Greywell Parish Council, criteria for site selection; NPSG gained by GPC. residents of Greywell, understanding of Greywell land use issues representatives of from residents and councillors, in particular a Hampshire CC and Hart keenness to maintain gap between Greywell DC, members of NPSG. and NW. 5 June Meeting at Hill House Care Home, Arranged by phone/email . Alison Lee, owner of 3 SG gained a first-hand insight into the issues 2015 Ewshot care homes (2 in Fleet, around siting a care home, layout/design 1 in Ewshot) and requirements. Confirmed that land adj. resident of Broad Oak, Crownfields would be an appropriate site. members of the SG. Learned about demand for dementia care, layout and practical considerations regarding staffing, traffic. 16 June Meeting to gain further understanding of Arranged by email. Mike Barter, then CEO SG gained a better understanding of the issues 2015 care home considerations. Star & Garter Homes, around siting a care home e.g. Shorter, wider former CO RAF Odiham site preferable, 60 rooms should be viable. plus members of the NPSG.
26
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
26 June Meeting with landowners and agent to Arranged by phone/email Members of SG, Discussed sketch plan and revised parameters. 2015 discuss draft sketch site landowner and agent. Agent agreed to supply. layouts/development parameters for land adj. Crownfields/SHLAA 327 (Policy 2vii) June Further meetings with agents and Arranged by phone or Owner and/or Agents of Further discussions relating to detail and site 2015 landowners of two development sites. email. sites [2.v, 2.vii] in parameters. meetings with SG members followed up by letter and email. End Telecon discussion with agents of site 2.v By phone. Agents and members of Discussed agent’s alternative sketch layouts June/ NPSG. for site and reached agreement in principle early regarding which to develop further. For July inclusion in Pre-submission Plan.
3 July Meeting regarding site v. (Dunleys Hill) Arranged by e mail Developer and agent Further discussions about development of site, 2015 plus members of SG access, site parameters and housing numbers housing team. for inclusion in Pre-Submission Plan.
9 July Meeting with landowners and agent to Arranged by phone/email Landowner and agent Further clarification of sketch details and other 2015 discuss further sketch layout/development plus member of the SG site parameters for inclusion in pre-submission parameters for land adj. housing team. plan. Crownfields/SHLAA 327 (Policy 2 vii) 27 July Meeting with Hart Planners to discuss Email Robert Jackson, HDC Advice sought from Hart with regard to 2015 compliance with Hart policies and members of SG. particular sites, Local Gaps, Local Green Spaces, Affordable Housing. Will inform production of ONWNP.
11 Aug Meeting with landowners and agent to Email Landowner owners, Explored inclusion of land with potential for 2015 discuss draft sketch layout/development agent and members of nursery school use to include in Pre- parameters for land adj. NPSG. submission Plan. Crownfields/SHLAA 327 (Policy 2 vii) 10-14 Email exchange with Service Manager Emails HCC officials and SG Gained insight into how the early years’ sector Sept Childcare Development, and colleagues, member. is changing; the formula for calculating nursery 2015 Hampshire County Council places required; and new initiatives likely to increase demand further from 2017, so that ONWNP content makes provision for this trend (and related uncertainty).
27
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
PHASE FOUR: PRE-SUBMISSION
14 Oct – Pre-Submission consultation (Reg 14) Publicised by letter,(App3) HDC, other statutory 333 representations were received: 236 were 30 Nov email, mailings to consultees, from residents including many showing strong 2015 database, posters neighbouring parish support for the plan in its entirety; 36 were from throughout the community councils, voluntary statutory consultees and other stakeholders; 61 and at 7 village hubs. organisations, came from residents of neighbouring parishes. (App 2 CEF 20) community groups, Responses were reviewed by the SG and the residents of Odiham, NP consultant. Appropriate modifications were RAF Odiham and North made to the plan for submission. Warnborough. See Appendix 5 See Appendix 4 26 Oct Meeting at Hart District Council offices. Arranged by mail. 3 key officials from Hart HDC gave initial feedback on Pre-Submission 2015 District Council: Plan and agreed to send further detail in writing 3pm including Joint Chief before end of consultation period to inform the Executive, plus ONWNP for Submission. members of the NPSG . 9 Nov Informal meeting at RAF Odiham Arranged by tel/email New RAF Engagement Introduced to new Community Engagement 2015 Officer, OC PMS (briefly Officer; answered questions about the Plan, later also OC Base especially content most relevant to RAF Support Wing), Odiham. Explained representation process and members of the SG. next steps. Encouraged future engagement. 23 Nov Meeting with Historic England Arranged by email Historic England Detailed advice given by Historic England 2015 representative and regarding site parameters and policy wording members of SG. for Conservation Area sections. Will inform plan for Submission. 8 March Discussion with Hampshire County By telephone Cllr Liz Fairhurst, Gained further understanding of HCC care 2016 Council Executive Member for home provision and funding. Adult Social Care and SG member 14 Meeting with officials from Hart and East Arranged by email Katie Bailey, HDC, Updated SG on Local Plan time table and gave March Hampshire District Councils Simon Jenkins EHDC, advice on process towards NP Submission 2016 Cllr Ken Crookes and Plan. members SG
28
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 APPENDIX 1 Summary table of Engagement and Consultation Activity in Developing ONWNP
16 Discussion with Care home owner By telephone Alison Lee, NPSG Gained further information about funding by March, member HCC, affordability, and dementia related 2016 issues.
25 April Meeting with Hart DC Email Katie Bailey and NPSG Reviewed draft Submission Plan. Comments 2016 members. received. Recommended to meet Vicki Potts, Planning Policy Manager East Hampshire DC.
3 May Meeting with East Hampshire DC Email Vicki Potts, Planning Discussed Local Plan’s expert group report and 2016 Policy Manager East implications for draft NP. Further discussion of Hants and members of progress of HDC Local Plan and housing the NPSG. numbers including the likelihood that the care home will no longer count towards those housing numbers.
June Shared latest information and asked the By email, online, social Mailing to 788 members 85% of 472 completed responses confirmed 2016 community a supplementary question. media, Parish News and of the community and that they wanted the Neighbourhood Plan to be posters at prominent 139 other stakeholders submitted at the earliest opportunity despite the App 2 CEF 23 locations in the parish. who registered to be uncertainty over housing numbers and the kept informed of likelihood that the care home does not count
progress. towards those numbers. Of these 84% responses came from residents of ONW, of which 85% were positive. 65 came from neighbouring Greywell. Appendix 2 CEF 23
29
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
APPENDIX 2 – CONSULTATION EVIDENCE FILES
To see contents of the folders below see online: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5rlnw5cjxsltofh/AAA00-MJKiTQfX9I6YMIAq4Za/2. Consultation Statement and Appendices/Appendix 2. Consultation Evidence File?dl=0
1. OPC calls for volunteers 2. 2012 site surveys 3. In Odiham Open Day 4. OnwardPlan Online 5. Mail chimp summary 6. Providing feedback 7. Raising awareness 8. SG Visioning exercise 9. Feedback from 4 key questions 10. Summary of engagement with community groups 11. C! Publicity Dec 14 – Jan 15 12. C1 Events and content 13. C1 Results and reporting of results 14. Business Survey Spring 2015 15. Youth workshops March 2015 16. Engagement with children and young families 17. C2 Publicity 18. C2 Content 19. C2 Results summary 20. Pre-Submission publicity 21. Pre-Submission Plan content 22. Articles and press coverage 23. After Pre-Submission 24. Correspondence with Natural England
30
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 3 Pre-Submission Notification Letter – Example 2015-10-14
31
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016
32
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 4 – List of people and bodies consulted and consultation method
Age Concern Hampshire Email Area Social Services Letter Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Email Basingstoke Canal Authority Letter Basingstoke Canal Society Email Black Environment Network Email British Gas Email BT Group Letter Buryfields Infant School Email Carers Together Hampshire Email Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Email Churches Together Email Citizens Advice Bureau - Hart District Email Citizens Advice Bureau - Fleet & District Email Civil Aviation Authority Email Community Action Hampshire Email Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Thames Valley Email CPRE Hampshire Email CPRE North East Hampshire Email Crondall Parish Council Email Deaf PLUS South Email Defense Estates (South - Aldershot) Email Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Email Dogmersfield Parish Council Email East Hampshire District Council Email English Heritage Email Enterprise M3 (LEP) Email Environment Agency South East Email Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Email Forestry Commission Letter Good Neighbours Support Service Email Greywell Parish Council Email Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Email Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Government Association Email Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Nature Partnership Email Hampshire Bat Group Email Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Email Hampshire CC - Councillor Email Hampshire CC - Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Email Hampshire Chamber of Commerce Email Hampshire Coalition of Disabled People Email Hampshire Constabulary Email Hampshire County Council Email Hampshire County Council – Social Services Email Hampshire County Council – Highways, Countryside, Planning, Email Economic Development, Transport, Planning Hampshire Deaf Association Email Hampshire Garden Trust Email
33
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 4 – List of people and bodies consulted and consultation method
Hampshire Highways North Email Hampshire PCT Email Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Email Hampshire Primary Care Trust Email Hampshire Senate Email Hampshire Strategic Partnership Email Hart District – Councillor Email Hart District – Councillor Email Hart District Association of Parish Councils Email Hart District Council Email Hart District Council - Housing services, Environmental & Technical Email Services, Hart First Response Email Hart Voluntary Action Email Highways Email Highways Agency Email Homes and Communities Agency Email Hook Action Against Overdevelopment Email Hook Focus Community Magazine Email Hook Infants School Email Hook Junior School Email Hook Parish Council Email Hyde Housing Email Institute for the Independent Business Email Long Sutton & Well Parish Council Email Long Sutton C of E Primary School Email Lord Wandsworth College Email Mayhill Junior School Email Ministry of Defence ODI-BSW Engagement Email MOD Defence Estates Email National Farmers Union (South East Region) Email National Grid UK Letter National Housing Federation Email National Trust Email Natural England Email Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Email NHS England Email NHS North East Hampshire & Farnham CCG Email NHS North Hampshire CCG Email North & Mid Hampshire Health Authority Letter North East Hampshire Historical & Archaeological Society Email (NEHHAS) North East Hampshire Water Activities Association Email North Hampshire Downs [Benefice] Email North Hampshire Hospital at Basingstoke Letter Odiham Cottage Hospital Email Odiham Health Centre Email Odiham Parish Council Email Odiham Society Email Office of Rail Regulation Email Open Sight Email 34
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 4 – List of people and bodies consulted and consultation method
Open Spaces Society Email Orange UK Ltd Letter Parity for Disability Email Planning Aid Email Potbridge Residents Association Email RAF Odiham Email RAISE Email Ramblers Association (Hampshire Area) Email Reading Borough Council – Planning Email Relate Email Robert May’s School Email Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Email Rushmoor Borough Council – Planning Email Scottish & Southern Electric Letter Sentinel Housing Email South East Water Email South Warnborough Parish Council Email
South West Trains Email
Southern Electric Letter
Southern Gas Network Email Southern Water Company Email Sport England Email St John's Ambulance Letter Surrey County Council – Planning Email Surrey Heath Borough Council – Planning Email Telefonica UK Ltd Letter Thames Valley Housing Association Ltd Email Thames Valley Police Authority Email Thames Water Planning Policy Email The British Wind Energy Association Email The Garden History Society Email The Gypsy Council Letter The National Trust Email The Ramblers Association Email The Society for the Protection for Ancient Buildings Email TLRP Planning Email Transco PLC Letter Virgin Media Letter Vodaphone Group Plc Letter Waldon Telecom Ltd Email Waverley Borough Council Email West Berkshire Council – Planning Email
Whitewater [Benefice] Email
Whitewater Valley Preservation Society Email
Winchfield Action Group Email Winchfield Court Residents Association Email Winchfield Parish Council Email Woking Borough Council Email Wokingham Borough Council – Policy & Partnerships Email
35
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 4 – List of people and bodies consulted and consultation method
GROUPS AND BUSINESSES IN ODIHAM & NORTH WARNBOROUGH
These have regularly been sent emails throughout the process of preparing the Neighbourhood Plan.
Organisation Classification Mayhill PTA Schools and Colleges Odiham Parish Council Local Government Planning Local Government Hart DC Local Government RAF - ODI-BSW Engagement Local Government Odiham Brownies Childrens Groups Odiham Cubs Childrens Groups Odiham Cubs Childrens Groups Odiham Scouts Childrens Groups NW Village Hall Committee Charities and Groups Royal British Legion Charities and Groups Almshouses (Relief of Poverty) Charities and Groups Inodiham Charities and Groups Odiham Society Charities and Groups Odiham and Hook Rotary Charities and Groups Leapfrogs Schools and Colleges Puddleducks Schools and Colleges Buryfields Schools and Colleges Buryfields PTA Schools and Colleges Mayhill Juniors Schools and Colleges Robert May’s Schools and Colleges North Warnborough Toddler Group Schools and Colleges Odiham & Greywell Cricket Club Sport and Leisure Odiham & NW Bowls Club Sport and Leisure Odiham Cycling Club Sport and Leisure Odiham Tennis Club Sport and Leisure U3A Sport and Leisure Jubilee Choir Sport and Leisure Holy Ridiculous Sport and Leisure Odiham Rock Choir Sport and Leisure Military Wives Choir Sport and Leisure Byways Trust Disability Groups Sunshine and Showers (anxiety support) Disability Groups All Saints Church Church & Religious Groups Friends of All Saints Church & Religious Groups Odiham Over 55s Wellbeing Forum Senior Residents Seymour Place (Cognatum) Senior Residents Odiham Cottage Hospital Business Odiham Health Centre Services Aston Leigh Studios Business Bank House Business Bartley Heath Pottery Business Bates Solicitors Business Bellamy Roberts Business Black Chilli Public Relations Business Brian Buckland (Builders) Business 36
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 4 – List of people and bodies consulted and consultation method
Brides of Odiham Business CAD Up Business Caviste Business Egdon Resources Business Fountains Coffee Shop Business Galleon Marine Business Gopherowen handyman Business Grapevine Restaurant Business Grasp Support (IT) Business Hambridge Lettings Business Harper Morgan Business Iconic Window Cleaning Business JP Designers (Printing) Business Katherine Jane Gifts Business Lets Face It Business King Street Dental Practice Business Mind Matters Business McCarthy Holden Business Moutan Business Mrs Crimbles Business Networking Naturally Business Newlyns Farm Shop Business Next Door Business Odiham Clinic Business Odiham Dental Care Business Odiham Optician Business Odiham Oracle Business Odiham Osteopath Clinic Business Odiham Spice (Restauramt) Business Originals Business P&K Electrical & Hardware Business Peregrine Travel Business Purcell rooms Business Release Hypnotherapy Business Response Systems Business RHC Creative Strategy Business Shoutabout Design Business Spectro Oil Business Strutt & Parker Business Strutt & Parker Business The Derby Business The Frame Business The Mill House Business The Paella Company Business The Snug Business Typeface Creative Business Walker & Walker Business Wisepay Business Transformations Business Hampshire County Council Local Government Co-op Business Wisteria Children's Centre PreSchool Pathfinders for Patients Charities and Groups 37
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 4 – List of people and bodies consulted and consultation method
Royal Air Force RAF Bel & Dragon at the George Business Charlie Brown's Business El Castello Business Aspire Catering Ltd Business The Skin Clinic Business K M Services Business Hazel Curtis Business Pug Performance Motorsport Business Benjamin Peace Paintworks Business Gordon Lowdon Business Jet Care International Ltd Business Leo Mulkerns Architects Business Aileen George Counselling Business Andrews Plumbing and Heating Services Business Mark Warden Business Mission Hypnotherapy Business Odiham Connected (Home Technology) Business G K Benford & Co Business Trees and Logs Business Microtor Supplies Ltd Business S Lee Landscapes Business SG Health & Fitness Business Fineline Flooring Ltd Business Palace Gate Senior Residents Age Concern Charities and Groups Hook & Odiham Rugby Club Sport and Leisure
RESIDENTS OF ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH
During the process of preparing the Neighbourhood Plan a range of contact methods were used including e mail, information at hubs, website and social media, leaflets, Parish News articles and a range of events and initiatives.
LANDOWNERS/AGENTS
Landowners and agents of potential development sites within the parish have been contacted as necessary during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan by letter, e mail, meetings and calls.
38
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Ref # Post Code Residency (if Representation of Online Survey / Email / Letter Comments known) or respondent Note: where Attachments are referred to these may be viewed on-line at: Consultee name http://onwardplan.com/library/pre-sub-statutory-consultee-comments/ 1 KT10 9QA Lightwood property Landowner or E mail 30th Nov 2015 with letter Representative
Dear Sir/Madam, I write in response to the Draft Neighbourhood Plan Pre Submission consultation. We represent our clients, regarding the land behind Beech Cottage, Kings Street, Odiham, reference 'BC' within the draft Neighbourhood Plan. We wrote to the Chairman of the O&NW Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group on 6th May 2015 specifically in relation to this matter and submit the content of that letter once again as our submission to this stage of the process. Response: See report from Consultant
2 RG27 8SY Landowners Landowner or E mail 30th Nov 2015 re: Crumplins Field, Dunleys Hill, Odiham. Representative Dear Sirs, We agree in principle with your thinking, if not in detail, and have requested Andrew Macallan to make a planning application that we hope would have your approval.
Response: See report from Consultant 3 RG29 1AQ Odiham Resident of Parish Letter 28th Nov 2015The primary purpose of Odiham Parish’s Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is to identify sites for additional housing within the Parish. It is intended that such additional housing will satisfy the requirements of the emergent Hart District Local Plan without significantly degrading the character and environment of the Parish. It will be the responsibility of other authorities to determine whether the resulting increase in the number of households within the Parish would overstrain its infrastructure and utilities (such as water supply). The Steering Group should be congratulated for scrupulously addressing the preferences and priorities of the local population, which were expressed in public consultation during 2015. These views have guided the Steering Groups’ selection of the potential housing sites and provision of Local Green Spaces (LGS). I am particularly pleased that the NP has designated the southern part of Odiham’s (formally Royal) Deer Park as LGS. This Deer Park has been a notable feature of the Parish for over a thousand years. It has been a formative influence on the development of the villages (notably the on the Northern boundary of Odiham) and continues to provide an accessible area of informal recreation and attractive views into and out of Odiham. The Deer Park is distinctive and now unusual, feature of the local landscape, and public consultations in January and May 2015 demonstrated that it is a treasured element in the heritage of the Parish. Pre-submission Plan: In Section 3 about Land Use, Policy 8 should be augmented by a sub-paragraph about Broad Oak Common, which is shown in Plan G as a ‘significant green space’ and therefore deserves a mention in the text. Par 3.67 should explain why its list of ‘assets of community value’ is limited to four buildings. This list should 39
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
surely include sporting facilities, the library itself, and public toilets. Para 4.2 should justify the NP’s enthusiasm for development on a Rural Exception Site. Such development would be inconsistent with Policy, and risks inappropriate commercial or residential developments which would degrade the rural landscape and overload local roads. Strategic Environment Assessment: Para 4 should refer to the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area, part of which lies within the Parish, as well as citing the other two Conservation Areas. Yours sincerely, Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
4 RG29 1LN Odiham Resident of Parish Letter 29th Nov 2015 Dear Sirs, I have seen and heard many comments and submissions. I do not think that I can mention many concerns that have not already been aired to a fulsome degree. I will confine myself to areas which I can only say concern me to a great degree. I am most concerned that the essentially rural character of Odiham as a village will disappear unless great care is taken to avoid thishappening. If it does happen all plans relating to the commercial fate of Odiham and its enjoyment by its residents as well as its attraction for younger families will be irretrievably lost. This would be a tragedy. Too much ‘infilling’ (where every single garden in Odiham is built upon) or ‘doughnut’ development (where an ancient and historic village is surrounded by brash new development, rather like a planner’s version of a scotch egg) will be disastrous. It will have the effect of making the centre of the village like a ‘quaint’ little curio, surrounded by a Milton Keynes. In my view the best development is that which is distanced from or abuts the village without either filling in completely or worse surrounding and enveloping it. I am concerned about the often over looked side effects of various parking and traffic management proposals. It is not that the desire for such is wrong in principle; it is the unforeseen consequences of such policies. When town planners hear the words ‘speed restrictions’, ‘parking management’ or ‘improved signage’ and the like, sometimes they envisage swathes of lurid coloured paint on road surfaces, safety cones, warning triangles, lights, fluorescent road signs, illuminated signs, chicanes, laminated reflectors and the whole panoply of safety inspired ‘street furniture’. An example of the above is the ancient and once beautiful university of Oxford. This is an example of what can happen. The city is awash with different coloured paints on road surfaces, red, blue and green, pecked lines, solid lines, single lines and double lines. A field of circular road signs in great numbers like some terrible army of garish lollipops. Triangular signs, signs that you are approaching a ‘chicane’, signs preceding those signs warning that you are about to be approaching a chicane, signs preceding them warning of the imminent appearance of the signs. I would emphasise I do not oppose dealing with the problems of parking and traffic management but that if this is to happen the essential attractiveness of the village is not lost forever, once installed such things are invariably permanent, they are never removed or even reduced – on ‘health and safety grounds’. If any traffic management measures are to be taken they should be at the extremities of the village and not within it. The two roundabouts at either end of the High Street at West Street and Farnham Hill, together with Cemetery Hill would seem to be the obvious choices. Any signage should be kept
40
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
to an absolute minimum. As to the Deer Park, the main concern must be that the area is protected from over development on a long term basis. It is no good to simply rely on assurances from the current owner no matter how sincerely meant. If the land is sold at some time in the future, whether it be during the lifetime of the current owner or subsequently by their heirs, there can be no guarantees concerning the approach to be taken by either a private person or some property speculator. The idea of a covenant is encouraging but the devil is in the detail. Hart District Council should enquire as to the nature of the proposed covenant and what effect it will have upon subsequent purchasers and whether it may be binding in perpetuity. It must take expert legal advice on the precise wording proposed, the binding effect upon subsequent owners and the full legal effect generally.
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
5 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere E mail 30th Nov 2015 We are residents of Greywell, the village to the west of North Warnborough and wish to express our strong support for Policy 3 in the Odiham Neighbourhood Pre-submission Plan for Local Gaps. Greywell is a small characterful village surrounded by beautiful countryside where we are able to walk our dog. Greywell is a very special space due to its beauty and nature and attracts visitors from all over Hart and in fact the world, as our church’s visitor book shows. We wish to maintain this special place some of which is already designated an SSSI. The village North Warnborough to the East of Greywell and Greywell should not be allowed to coalesce as this would compromise the character of each of these places and both would be ruined if this were to happen with the loss of very important surrounding country side. Please do not permit the merging together of these outstanding individual villages. Thank you
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
6 RG29 1LN Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 28th Nov 2015 The Deer Park has been part of this village for centuries, and is a natural open space for wild life between us and the busy race track of the motorway. Please don't make it into a municipal park with Tarmac and litter bins. A high fenced enclosure for miserable farmed deer would be a step too far, our wild deer visit there when it is quiet and peaceful and are free to return to the woods. We don't need a village hall when we have the lovely Cross barn. We do need more car parks but on the other side of the village behind the school, so that they and the shop workers can use it and others could walk into the village past the tennis courts.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
41
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
7 SG2 7AA JB Planning Landowner or By e mail 30th Nov 2015 plus ATTACHMENT Associates Representative Dear Sirs Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan 2014 – 2032: Pre-Submission Plan Please find our representations attached in respect of the above. The following comments are submitted on behalf of our client Avant Homes who are promoting a site on land at Dunleys Hill, Odiham (Policy 2 – Site v). We have considered the content of the Pre-Submission Draft Plan and wish to submit the following representations to the consultation (see attachment to e mail for details).
Response: See report from Consultant 8 GU10 4LH Environment Agency Statutory Consultee E mail 30th Nov 2015 with Attachment (text below) Dear Sir/Madam Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan - Pre-Submission Plan, Thank you for your recent consultation regarding the above plan. We note that a watercourse borders the west of both parts of site vi of your proposed site allocations (land at Hook Road - Northern and Southern parcels). We would advise that any scheme developed for those sites needs to have regard to the presence of the watercourse at these sites. Consenting and enforcement for ordinary watercourses, such as that referred to at site vi above, is now the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authority. However, it is good practice for a buffer zone, minimum 5 metres wide measured from top of bank, to be provided adjacent to an ordinary watercourse when development proposals are drawn up. This buffer zone should remain undeveloped and in a natural state. We are pleased that your proposed sites all appear to be within Flood Zone 1, areas at lowest annual probability of fluvial flooding. We support your policy 12, and are generally happy with the supporting text, paragraphs 3.57 to 3.63 inclusive. We note however that there are some areas at risk of fluvial flooding within the neighbourhood plan area. In the absence of an adopted local plan which sets a local policy for that issue, we understand that relevant policies in the NPPF will apply if any proposals come forward in your area which are affected by fluvial flood risk. Yours faithfully
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
9 GU1 3EH Historic England Statutory Consultee E mail 30th Nov 2015 plus Attachment To whom it may concern Please find attached our comments in response to the consultation on the neighbourhood plan pre-submission consultation. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries relating to our comments or any difficulty in opening the attached document. Yours sincerely
42
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
10 SO32 2DP Hampshire and Isle- Statutory Consultee E mail 30th Nov 2015 plus Attachment of-Wight Wildlife Dear Sirs, Please find attached the Wildlife Trust’s comments to the above referenced Neighbourhood Plan. Trust Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss our comments. Kind regards
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to the Submission Plan.
11 RG27 9TP Bell Cornwell LLP Landowner or E mail 30th Nov 2015 plus Attachment representative Please find attached objection and comment on the gap and green space policies of the plan, the evidence base and parts of the SEA. Please acknowledge receipt by the 12 noon deadline. Thank you With kind regards,
Response: See report from Consultant
12 RG29 1AH Basingstoke Canal Consultee E mail 30th Nov 2015 Society I am responding on behalf of The Basingstoke Canal Society to your request for comments on the Pre-submission draft of the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan. As you will appreciate, our comments are focussed on the aspects of the plan which deal with the Basingstoke Canal. I should also mention that the Canal Society has approximeately 1000 members and we support the canal in numerous ways including operating a very successful trip boat from Colt Hill, organising work parties that are engaged in maintaining and improving the canal, arranging canal-based events (we organised the very successful Magna Carta canal rally at Colt Hill last May) and promoting the canal, for example by providing speakers for local group meetings. We have reviewed the draft Pre-submission Plan and we are pleased to confirm that we are fully supportive of the NP Team's recommendations. We would also like to offer a few additional comments. These are: 1.In policy 3 (Local Gaps) we are also concerned that any development in the strategic gap between N Warnborough and Greywell would have a negative impact on the canal. We would propose the following additional wording to cover this point: "Any development in this area would be prejudicial to the setting of the canal and would have a significant adverse impact on views from the canal" We should also add that employing devices such as screening with hedges and other vegetation should not be regarded as a satisfactory way of concealing new developments. Apart from the fact that hedges affect the views, they are also temporary in nature and can easily be removed. The following comments concern Policy 8 1. As the canal is a 220 year old historic structure it is important, in our 43
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
view, that any materials used in the construction of buildings adjacent to the canal should be traditional in nature i.e. brick, tile etc. We also fully endorse the NP Team's view that fencing should be either discouraged or should be sympathetic to the canal environment. 2. We are concerned that developers currently attempt to disguise three storey buildings as only having two storeys (the recent Hook Road planning application appeared to use this device). We would therefore like to see a restriction placed on the heights of any buildings constructed within sight of the canal. 3. The Swan inn at N Warnborough is an historic pub which was used by barge owners for refreshment and to stable their horses. We would like to see the retention and restoration of the pub as an objective in the plan. 4. Bridges - The bridges on the Basingstoke Canal are an important feature and we therefore support the policy to retain them. However, Lodge Copse Bridge west of Colt Hill is a crudely constructed and non-traditional structure and we would like to see this replaced with a traditional-style accommodation bridge (which, incidentally, could be made sufficiently strong to accept the weights of farm vehicles). 5. It is not clear whether the cottages at the Lift Bridge are included within Policy v(b) but we would suggest that they are clearly identified as they are an important feature of the canal scene. 6. Although the Basingstoke Canal Authority are planning to provide new canal maps at Colt Hill wharf and the Lift Bridge, we feel that there is a need for new interpretation boards (covering local history, ecology etc) at various points on the canal. We suggest that the NP should encourage this. 7. Improved access to the canal for all potential users (walkers, fishermen, canoeists, cyclists etc) is a key priority. The car park at Colt Hill is adequate but additional parking would be desirable (eg in the area west of London Road and north of Colt Hill Bridge). We have also advocated a development plan for the Colt Hill area which would include a small visitor centre, toilets, a small boat basin (on the land adjacent to the Hatchwood Farm development) and a bridge across the canal to connect the car park to the open space to be acquired by OPC. In summary we are very pleased with the results of the work of the NP team and we look forward to seeing the plan adopted by the local community. Best wishes
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
13 GU52 6ED Macallan Penfold Landowner or E mail 30th Nov 2015 plus Attachment Chartered Architects Representative Dear Parish Clerk, I attach comments from ourselves and my clients regarding the site at Dunleys Hill which they own. Please can you acknowledge receipt.
Response: See report from Consultant
44
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
14 GU51 4AE Hart District Council Consultee E mail 30th Nov 2015 plus Attachments Please find attached a covering letter and schedule setting out Hart District Councils comments on the above. Once you have had regard to these and other comments made on the Plan we are of course happy to discuss relevant issues with you as you progress towards Submission.
Response: : Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
15 RG29 1SS Long Sutton and Statutory Consultee E mail 30th Nov 2015 Well Parish Council Dear Parish Council, Thank you for inviting Long Sutton & Well Parish Council to comment on your Pre-submission proposals for your Neighbourhood Plan. We have No Comment to make. Best regards
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
16 RG29 1EU North Warnborough Resident of Parish E mail 30th Nov 2015 Dear Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Pre-Submission Odiham and North Warnborough Plan. I fully support the Neighbourhood Plan process and believe it is absolutely vital to safeguard our community from over-development and urbanisation, by having in place an approved plan which can become part of the statutory planning framework. I also fully endorse the 'vision' laid out in the Neighbourhood Plan. However there are a number of details on which I have specific comments: Site Scoring Methodology. In the May 2015 consultation I made a number of comments regarding inconsistency and lack of transparency in the site scoring methodology. I am pleased to see the site scoring methodology is somewhat more transparent in the current pre-submission plan, but although you have explained the 9 top-level scoring criteria, you have not explained the four sub-criteria in each category. I think this is particularly important, because some sites which scored amongst the highest have been excluded from the final list of proposed sites. And a level of granularity is needed because the difference between a site being included in the shortlist and excluded comes down to a difference of one point in some cases! Community Views, Para 1.25 In the pre- submission plan, you make the following statement regarding community views expressed about the Hook Road site, during the May 2015 and previous consultations: 'Taking account of concerns expressed regarding the SSSI, two conservation areas within which the site lies and the pre-existing flooding risk on surrounding listed buildings relating the the Hook Road, North Warnborough (site 58) the Neighbourhood Plan proposes a less intensive use of the site.' This statement directly implies that you have reacted to the community views expressed regarding this site and reduced the number of proposed dwellings for the site accordingly. However 15 dwellings were proposed for this site in the May 2015 consultation, and 15 is still the proposed
45
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
number in the pre-submission plan. Therefore I feel this is a very misleading statement! Policy 2vi: Hook Road. This site attracted 63 negative comments in the May 2015 consultation and there is a strong local opposition for large-scale development of this site. Most recently, a planning application for this site was rejected on the following grounds: • overdevelopment of the site resulting in a contrived layout dominated by buildings and hardstanding which is out of keeping and harmful to the Character of the area which includes the Basingstoke Canal and North Warnborough Conservation Areas. Contrary saved policies GEN1, CON10 and CON13. • The proposed development does not adequately secure the required drainage/SuDS proposals including their long- term maintenance and management. As such the proposal fails to ensure that the site along with areas downstream and adjoining land will not flood as a result of this development. The proposed development would give rise to additional detrimental impacts on the transport infrastructure • While the Neighbourhood Plan proposes a lesser number of houses that recent planning application, in my view the ruling if the planning committee makes the site unsuitable for development, and I would urge its removal from the Neighbourhood Plan. • However, if the site must remain in the short list for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan, I would strongly urge you to take into consideration the following points: Policy 2vi(e) makes reference to the fact that any planning 'proposals include satisfactory mitigation to resolve the known ground water/ surface water flooding problems within and downstream of the site'. I would urge you to amend this to read 'within, adjacent to and downstream of the site.' It is not just those properties downstream of the site which have suffered flooding, but also Nevills, The Granary, The Bakery, and the land on which the the Barley House now stands. Also, this policy would benefit from a definition 'satisfactory' in respect of the required flooding mitigations. The Design Principles outlined in the pre-submission plan have some distinct differences with respect to the northern and southern portions of the site. For example, the southern portion requires a 'landscape buffer to protect privacy and amenity if the existing dwellings'. This is not specified for the northern portion of the site, however should be equally applicable. In particular the dense tree boundary shown on your plan along the western boundary of the northern half of the site is misleading. To the rear of The Bakery, the only physically boundary with the proposed site is the drainage ditch. There is no substantial planting on this portion of the boundary, resulting in open views across the site. Therefore some kind of landscape buffer would be essential to preserve the privacy and amenity of existing dwellings. I understand the reasons for the disproportionate allocation of houses between the northern and southern parts of the site, in terms of protecting the views across the site from the canal. However the northern part of the site would equally benefit from allocated green space, as the design scheme for the southern part seems to have included. Some consideration should also be given to building heights and form to protect views, privacy and amenity of existing houses (The Bakery is a single storey property with views to the rear across the northern part of the Hook Road site) as has been included in the design principles for some of the other proposed sites e.g. Western Lane, Albion Yard. Policy 2iv: Land behind Albion Yard. Two alternative access routes to this site are currently proposed. I believe access to this site should only be from Albion Yard, in order to provide appropriate spacing of traffic entering Hook Road. The combined effect of two additional traffic junctions from this site and the Hook Road site, on what is an already very busy stretch of Hook Road, with limited visibility in both directions, would increase the risk of traffic accidents. I believe the proposed pedestrian footpath from the site to Hook Road would provide a loss of amenity to existing residents. Policy 11: Local Green Spaces. I agree 46
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
with inclusion of all the proposed Local Green Spaces, with the exception of the land to the east of Archery Fields. It's position on the edge of the village, surrounded by lots of green space and open countryside, suggests to me that its preservation as a green space is less important than preserving other green spaces within the built area of the village. Additionally building on this site would not materially alter the housing density, as it is already an area with greater housing density and a development on this site would 'square off' the settlement boundary of the village. Kind Regards,
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
17 SO14 0TB Turley Associates Ltd Landowner or E mail 30th Nov 2015 with Attachment representative Dear Sirs, On behalf of our client Bewley Homes, please find attached representations on the draft Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan. As stated in the attached, our client’s main objection is to the proposed Local Green Space designation on Close Meadow, which for the reasons stated should be removed in order for the plan to be found in accordance with the statutory and government policy provisions. As noted in the submission we request the right to be heard at the Examination into the plan. We would also like to meet with the Neighbourhood Plan steering group to discuss our representations, and a mutually agreeable way forward, in due course. Yours faithfully
Response: See report from Consultant 18 RG29 1DE Greywell Resident elsewhere E mail 30th Nov 2015 Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to register my opinions about the onward plan. I support the Neighbourhood Plan as it is presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish. Greywell village is very small and historic village where people have chosen to live specifically in order to avoid being part of a greater development. The construction of any housing at all on site 108 would irrepairably destroy the village and the way of life for its residents. A development would destroy the character of the area- hits are is a conservation zone and contains the Grade 1 historic St John's castle as well as a multitude of historic, listed buildings and this would be completely destroyed by the proposed development. Of great concern is also the effect is will have on the SSSI and the huge colony of bats which live in the area. A development would undoubtedly disrupt the ecology of the area and destroy the bats food source and disrupt their fly path: many other species would also be in danger including rare orchids which have been noted as growing in this area. There is I believe plenty of unused and redundant commercial buildings which could be used before any more greenfield sites are allocated anywhere in 47
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
this area and the housing demand which is in any events predicated on false premises can be met by using brownfields sites: once these precious greenfield sites are developed they are gone forever. Any coalescence would be fatal for the character and feel of the area as well as to its wildlife and SSI status and is to be prevented at all costs: we categorically object to any form of development on the site. I would therefore strongly support policy 3 which proposes the creation of a local gap between the villages of Greywell and North Warnborough. Yours faithfully Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
19 PO19 1DL Genesis Town Landowner or E mail 30th Nov 2015 with Attachment Planning Limited representative Dear Sir/Madam, Please see attached representation submitted on behalf of Wates Developments Limited which has an interest in land to the south of Farnham Road, Odiham. I trust the above representation is of assistance. I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and if you would keep me informed of future stages of the Neighbourhood Plan process. Yours faithfully
Response: Comments noted, and as a result of outline planning permission being granted on proposed LGS site, site has been removed from the Plan. 20 SO23 8UD Hampshire County Statutory Consultee Dear Sir / Madam, Council Please find attached the comments of Hampshire County Council in respect of the above Neighbourhood Plan. Hopefully all is self-explanatory but, if you have any questions or require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully,
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
21 RG27 9TP Bell Cornwell LLP Landowner or E mail 30th Nov 2015 with Attachment Representative Dear Sirs, Please find attached representations submitted on behalf of the owners of the land next to Crownfields, Odiham. We look forward to your acknowledgement of receipt shortly. Regards
Response: See report from Consultant
48
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
22 RG29 1AS Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 30th Nov 2015 Dear Onward Plan, Thank you for producing your draft plan and the opportunity to comment. A thorough document where you seem to have taken on board a lot of the concerns/feedback from the earlier stages of the process. Just to say I have no specific comments and generally supportive of the draft plan - good luck with the next phase in the process! Regards.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
23 RG29 9SG Greywell Resident elsewhere E mail 29 Nov 2015 Dear Sirs, I support the neighbourhood plan as presented and in particular the creation of a formal gap between Greywell and North Warnborough. I strongly object to any housing development on site 108. The road network would not be able to support the increase in traffic which would inevitably accompany any housing development. The Street in North Warnborough and Deptford Lane are both single track road in places with no pavement for pedestrians. It is already difficult to pull out safely from many of the driveways in Deptford Lane as motorists drive too fast and cannot be seen. Any increase in traffic would be most unsafe and likely to lead to accidents and intolerable congestion. I strongly believe that we should be seeking to preserve rural England and this plan would be very damaging. The site abuts the Basingstoke canal and swing bridge which is popular with walkers and development would destroy the rural nature of the area. The housing development would also be visible from the historic sight of King John's castle which I also believe to be undesirable. There are other more socially acceptable and geographically suitable sites within the parish which could satisfy the additional housing needs. Yours Faithfully,
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
24 RG29 1LJ Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 29th Nov 2015 1. We are broadly in support of the of the ONWARD Plan as published. We appreciate the amount of work & thought that has been put into it by so many people. 2. We have concerns about the way in which the debate on the future of the DEER PARK is developing. Much of it is emotional & divisive. SPAG seems to have developed as a negative pressure group. 3. One thing is certain the “Deer Park” is an enormous potential resource to ONW & the community, both social & commercial. The issue is whether it is being used to its full potential at present. We feel that the answer is NO. 4. One issue is that much/all of the land is in private ownership. It may have been an “Historic Deer Park” for many centuries, but little/no maintenance has been undertaken in recent years. Its pathways, drainage, hedgerows, etc. have deteriorated & you have had numerous comments to this effect. Local & national governments have little money in times of austerity to undertaken such maintenance/improvements 49
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
nor is this situation likely to change. 5. The (whole or part?) landowner has made proposals for the improvement & development & in many quarters has been villified for his initiative. The OPC has adopted, it seems, a more constructive approach in talking/negotiating with the landowner resulting in a second proposal, under consideration, we understand, but still vigorously opposed by many. 6. We think that the OPC approach is correct & should continue to see what improvements can be obtained for the community as a whole. It may be that a special Deer Park Group should be established to develop creative ideas/negotiations; including perhaps OPC, Onward Steering Group, ODSOC, businesses, residents, etc. Some lateral thinking is needed - would residents/businesses consider contributions, a levy/tax to implement defined plans to improve the Deer Park?! Perhaps we shall need to consider some level of housing development, but surely we can protect in some way the rest of the Deer Park for the future. Surely many visitors would love to see some deer in the “Deer Park” rather than muddied paths, broken drains, walls & cow pats! 7. What is the alternative? To say NO to any development in the “Deer Park, to let it deteriorate further & to default on our obligations to the community & future generations. Some food for creative thought …
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 25 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish I agree with the plan as outlined.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
26 RG29 1EU North Warnborough Resident of Parish In General I view the neighbourhood plan favourably. I have one reservation. There is already planning granted for 11 additional houses to be built in the area immediately behind the former chillipad and Castlebridge cottages in North Warnborough. I would ask that the majority of houses planned for the split site along the canal in North Warnborough be built in the site opposite "the Cat" rather than adding to the houses already planned behind the chilli pad and Castlebridge cottages. In this way the sparsely developed nature of this area can be maintained throughout the conservation area rather than just in selected areas. I hope you will consider the existing granted planning permissions in re-thinking your recommendation for this site. Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 27 RG29 1NW Odiham Resident of Parish Generally I am supportive of the Pre submission draft plan and endorse its contents. 1.Policy2.-Site vii-Crownfields- I understand why the site has been suggested for development given its proximity to Robert May's school but believe there has been insufficient explanation of the high dependency care home idea.I would have expected to see a more rigorous analysis by the OPC of this element of the Plan from the community's perspective before it is adopted as the preferred development option. 2.Policy 6.Local Green Space Designations.I am particularly pleased by this element of the draft Plan and as I 50
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
understand that the Archery Fields designation may now be a lost cause the other designated areas become even more important .I certainly value our existing open green spaces,they give the community its precious "rural " feel .I particularly hope that the OPC will listen to community views about the Deer Park and not support a development proposal which involves a house in the middle of the existing open space (bringing inevitable tensions between private ownership and public access).Some sympathetic very limited and localised development may be something the community as a whole would support but this should be consistent with LGS designation of at least the greater part.
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission 28 RG25 2RP Upton Grey Resident elsewhere The crownfields site is the most ideal solution. It provides the best facilities for Odiham. Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
29 RG29 1AW Odiham Resident of Parish Building on Dunleys Hill seems an unpopular choice and has little in the way of benefit, given the existing local Gap status. You are sacrificing a part of this Gap, for effectively a field. Currently the Elephant Grass provides a unique and different separation to Odiham and North Warnborough that you are proposing replacing with a featureless field that I see little support for or value in. Why on earth are you proposing a High Dependancy Cary home on Crownfields. This will ruin the view into Odiham with a large building which will blight the landscape. This will be of more use to people outside of the village and no doubt cost a fortune to use. This seems like a tactic to generate density to reduce houses else where. Where as actually spreading out a few more houses would have less Impact than a massive building at the gateway to our village. Some of the Green Spaces that have been put forward seem illogical. Beech Cottage for example is totally hidden from public view (unlike the care home on Crownfields). The Deer Park is a massive and a terribly underused space. It is all well and good to talk about preserving it - but why not turn it into a proper park area at the Heart of our community and right behind our High Street (like at Winchfield). Much more sensible that Dunleys hill. The owners plans make sense and would protect this land at the same time. In the Aims of the Plan (and High Street section), you gloss over the need for parking. It seems clear from the feedback and business survey that more parking close to the High Street is seen by everyone as important and needed. Why have you ignored this? The changes to the High street road side parking have had a positive effect, but why does the plan not plan for the 20 year period it is supposed to support But other than that - the Plan is a good one! Thank you for the effort
Response: Comments noted and plan rationale strengthened to explain decisions referred to regarding housing. Parking section also reviewed.
51
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
30 RG29 1DU Odiham Resident of Parish Local Gap and Housing development policy. I generally believe that the onward plan offers a reasonable balance maintaining Odiham's historical values. The map in the proposed onward plan seems to reflect the previous requirement to maintain a local gap between Odiham and North Warnborough. My concern is that the proposed development of the Deer Park which is not itemised on the plan will interfere with the preservation of the local gap. The access to the proposed Deer Park on Dunleys Hill is a safety issue as traffic passes through this supposed 30 miles an hour limit often in excess of 50 miles an hour. The position of the access is potentially dangerous due to the shape of the bend and the fact that it is below the brow of the hill. This is already a very busy road and the safety of access to and from existing properties on the road could be compromised.
Response: Comments considered and no direct changes made to the draft plan as a result; nothing said materially impacts the Plan as currently developed 31 RG25 2RP Basingstoke Resident elsewhere The Crownfields site has been well thought out, and delivers the aims of the plan for local interests and needs. The area designated for the use of the Nursery school facility will be a necessary part of the future of the Odiham education provision. This is the most logical site for the Odiham village to grow into.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
32 RG29 1AP Odiham Resident of Parish For 23 years we have lived in a property that backs on to the Deer Park, we walk our dog in the fields daily. Should the land south of FP21 become a Local Green Space or a recreated Deer Park? We see much merit in the Revell vision but it makes no sense to vote for such a change when there is yet no planning application with any detailed proposal. Neither does it make sense to now vote against the vision on principle; we support the Parish Council stance that development of the vision should be encouraged in order to explore the range of benefits that it might bring to the community (the need for additional parking during the Extravaganza was clearly evident on Saturday). Designation as a Local Green Space might offer an attractive alternative but what would be gained? What requirements and responsibilities can be imposed a private landowner of an LGS? 40 hectares of muddy fields, much-neglected footpaths with perhaps limited public access, must represent a waste of a huge opportunity for improved recreational amenities around the village.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
33 RG29 1AT. Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 3. Local Gaps These are most important and should be maintained. Any development should be minimal, say three dwellings, especially Dunleys Hill. The appearance of our villages is most important as separate entities, not a sprawl. Policy 4. Housing Mix. We have plenty of large houses with sizeable gardens. 52
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
What we need locally is inexpensive small properties, perhaps flats in buildings that look like houses, to enable local young people who wish to buy to make a start. "Affordable" is such a vague term and can often mean £350,000 upwards, far too much for a starter home. We also need two or three bedroom properties with small gardens, possibly bungalows, for people to retire to. Current retirement properties in Odiham are mainly for the well off. Policy 11. Local Green Spaces Many people in this area live here because they are "outdoor" people. Our open spaces are very important, aesthetically and for walking and exercise. We do not want to Development of the Deer Park After due consideration my very strong feelings are that the Deer Park should not be interfered with. To enclose the deer is laughable, fish ponds we can manage without. The sop of a building and extra car parking would be intrusive. A major alteration to the identity of the village for one man's dream house. Finally let's have no more huge developments like Hatchwod Place/Montfort Place, totally out of proportion for our village.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
34 RG29 1TJ Odiham Resident of Parish Local green Space 11.i Close Meadow - While this is beautiful , tranquil spot it does not seem to provide much value for the general public. If this was to be a local park for BBQs or overflow parking I would agree with it being a LGS, but I believe it would be better suited for house based on its location in the village. 11.v Land adjacent to Archery Fields - I believe this would be a natural extension of Odiham for housing and I do not believe it should be a LGS. 11.vii -Deer Park - I do not believe the Deer Park should be a LGS. If it is designated a LGS it will probably remain a muddy cow pasture and no further improvements will be made due to lack of funding. I believe the community would benefit from a proper path to the canal which would connect the High Street with it and this could help improve tourism to the village. I also understand that the owner of the Deer Park has proposed plans for additional housing. Included in this proposal is an offer to provide additional car parking for the village which would be very helpful for the High Street.
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 35 RG29 1DU Odiham Resident of Parish Local Gap and Housing development policy. We generally believe that the onward plan offers a reasonable balance maintaining Odiham's historical values. The map in the proposed onward plan seems to reflect the previous requirement to maintain a local gap between Odiham and North Warnborough. My concern is that the proposed development of the Deer Park which is not itemised on the plan will interfere with the preservation of the local gap. The access to the proposed Deer Park on Dunleys Hill is a safety issue as traffic passes through this supposed 30 miles an hour limit often in excess of 50 miles an hour. The position of the access is potentially dangerous due to the shape of the bend and the fact that it is below the brow of the hill. This is already a very busy road and the safety of access to and from existing properties on the road could be compromised.
53
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
36 RG29 1DJ Odiham Resident of Parish In the section 'Vision and objectives' it is suggested that it should be an objective to attract more visitors but it's not explained why. Policy 1 The map showing how the area might look doesn't show the houses already being built at Hatchwood Farm - surely if settlement boundaries are to be drawn they should wrap around the sites at Hatchwood Farm and the land behind Hatchwood Cottage. Policy 2 The site at Crownfields extends quite incongruously into open countryside as there is no existing vegetation to screen it. Only know one person who thinks a care home is required and when one was proposed at Hatchwood Farm there were many objections to having one. Policy 9 The use of premises in the High Street has changed a lot since our move here more than 20 years ago and it must be accepted that such changes will continue to take place. It's neither possible or appropriate to try to 'fix' the High Street. Policy 11 I don't think the Kitchen Garden is worthy of LGS. It's largely out of sight and most people didn't know it existed before it was put up for sale. The land behind Beech Cottage shouldn't be LGS - it can't be accessed or seen. Planning has already been granted for the land next to Archery Fields. Close Meadow is really pleasant but with careful planning to keep the view of the church some of it could be used for housing. The most important proposed LGS is the Deer Park.
Response: Views on Housing including map, LGS and High Street all noted. Vision and Objectives further reviewed. 37 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support the Plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
38 RG29 1HG North Warnborough Resident of Parish I endorse the plan and wish to make the following comments. My children have grown up in the parish and are on the verge of setting up their own homes. If feel that it is very important for there to be affordable housing for young people with local connections. They are the future of the parish and it deprives the community of a vital portion of the age range if those in their twenties are unable to remain in the village because they can't afford accommodation. The rural nature of Odiham and N Warnborough is an important aspect of its charm and this must be retained for future generations. The gaps are crucial in preventing the villages from coalescing and I would like to see them implemented in the plan. Likewise the local green spaces will prevent the villages from losing the sense that the countryside reaches right into the heart of the settlements and all those identified are valuable in retaining this feature. Please ensure that they are retained in full in the plan.
54
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
39 RG29 1LG Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 2 - Housing Development Sites - I am happy with the various sites chosen. They all make sense. I think developing the land to the east of Archry Fields (The Parsons' fields) would be big and very sad event for the Village, and should be resisted. Policy 9 - Odiham High Street - I agree that a crossing in the area between the new Post Office and the new Co-Op is now required. That would obviate the need for an unnecessary 20mph speed restriction. Policy 13 - Assets of Community Value - I believe strongly that sport is an integral part of a community and helps maintain families of all age groups and children in the vicinity. I am therefore disappointed that the various sports clubs mentioned (particulary OGCC which has a vibrant and successful juniors section) are not included as such 'assets'.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
40 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Local Gap One: It is vital that North Warnborough and Greywell are kept as individual communities. Site 108 must be retained as agricultural land to safeguard Greywell and North Warnborough as independent villages. Housing Policy: Narrow roads through North Warnborough and Greywell could not safely cope with the increased traffic arising from any development on site 108. Any building on site 108 would result in unsafe increase in traffic on the local narrow road structure.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
41 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Local Gap One: It is vital that North Warnborough and Greywell are kept as individual communities. Site 108 must be retained as agricultural land to safeguard Greywell and North Warnborough as independent villages. Housing Policy: Narrow roads through North Warnborough and Greywell could not safely cope with the increased traffic arising from any development on site 108. Any building on site 108 would result in unsafe increase in traffic on the local narrow road structure.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
55
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
42 RG29 1PL Odiham Resident of Parish No to the nursery as Odiham has two child nursery's, one at raf and one at baker hall. We have 3 pre schools! No need for more.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
43 RG29 1ET North Warnborough Resident of Parish I am concerned about 2 main issues: 1) The survey which gave equal 'merit' of criteria, such as 'flood-risk' and 'amenity', whereas the former should be considered of much greater concern. Nationally we have seen several disasters in recent years where housing has been under water after inappropriately building in flood zones - a problem which will get worse with climate change. This is particularly relevant to the Hook Road site, even if the current proposal for housing is scaled down. 2) Building in Conservation Areas. This would adversely change the local scene very significantly, especially in North Warnborough, where a large section alongside the Basingstoke Canal would be 'urbanised'.
Response: Comments noted and rationale for scoring sites reviewed.
44 RG25 2RP Upton Grey Resident elsewhere Crownfields is the clear and obvious choice for more houses. Its just an extension of what is already there and has the best road access. A large number of the opposition comes from residents next to the site, who they themselves live in infill housing. I need not say anymore as I think that the site speaks for itself.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
45 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish I am against any development of the Deer Park, this unspoilt historic open space needs to remain the lovely natural area that it is, with access to it unhindered. It should not become a housing development for the wealthy, which may result in a restriction of access to areas of the Park because of fencing, etc. The Deer Park does not require landscaping in order to improve what is already a tranquil and attractive place. As local residents it is somewhere that we walk frequently and we are concerned that any development will transform the Park into more of a 'private estate' and that the meadows will be lost in the process.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
56
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
46 RG29 1NZ Odiham Resident of Parish I would like to thank the committee for the great deal of time and effort which have been given in the development of the plan, in what is by its nature a controversial and emotive subject, and congratulate them on formulating a clear plan for the village. With respect to education, it is very important that Robert Mays retains its room for expansion. The community that school served continues to grow, and there must be space for the expansion in order for the school to retain its quality of education. What is not covered in the plan is the effects on other educational facilities, in particular Buryfields and Mayhill schools. With the increase in numbers of houses in the village it is important that these schools have their sports fields retained, as well as providing room for classroom and facility expansion. Although a number of changes have been made to the plan for Crownfields, I am still very concerned about the development for a number of reasons. 1. Boundary creep: although this is not the intention of this plan, extending the boundaries do in this area opens the way for future development on the Firs, a landmark site, which is highly visible. 2. Access: the proposed access road is onto the Alton road, on a bend with little visibility. 3. Parking: the nature of a care home is going to mean a lot of visitors, both casual visitors, staff, medical and delivery. It is my feeling that given the limited parking on site, this will lead to an increase in use of Recreation, Salmons and Buffins Road for parking. These are already quite heavily used for parking from the existing residents, and are not suited to an increase in parking.
Response: Comments on Education noted though not strictly in scope of plan. Comments on Crownfields and impact of parking considered in further review of the plan.
47 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish The land east of Archery Fields should not be built on. It is such a beautiful, picturesque piece of land at the entrance to our wonderful village.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
48 RG29 1NZ Odiham Resident of Parish I would like to thank the committee for the great deal of time and effort which have been given in the development of the plan, in what is by its nature a controversial and emotive subject, and congratulate them on formulating a clear plan for the village. With respect to education, it is very important that Robert Mays retains its room for expansion. The community that school served continues to grow, and there must be space for the expansion in order for the school to retain its quality of education. What is not covered in the plan is the effects on other educational facilities, in particular Buryfields and Mayhill schools. With the increase in numbers of houses in the village it is important that these schools have their sports fields retained, as well as providing room for classroom and facility expansion. Although a number of changes have been made to the plan for Crownfields, I am still very concerned about the development for a number of reasons. 1. Boundary creep: although this is not the intention of this plan, extending the boundaries do in this area opens the way for future 57
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
development on the Firs, a landmark site, which is highly visible. 2. Access: the proposed access road is onto the Alton road, on a bend with little visibility. 3. Parking: the nature of a care home is going to mean a lot of visitors, both casual visitors, staff,medical and delivery. It is my feeling that given the limited parking on site, this will lead to an increase in use of Recreation, Salmons and Buffins Road for parking. These are already quite heavily used for parking from the existing residents, and are not suited to an increase in parking.
Response: Noted as for comment 46 49 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish As above, I fully support the plan which has been well thought out and represents my views
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
50 RG29 1QT RAF Odiham Statutory Consultee Policy 2 - We understood that the owner of the land next to Crownfields had agreed in principle that if the site is developed, a footpath link could be provided in the field alongside Firs Lane from the direction of RAF Odiham up to the northern boundary of the site. However I cannot see this mentioned in the submission plan? We believe a footpath would offer a safer alternative to school children accessing Robert May's school, rather than the existing footpath beside the busy Alton Road. We also support the fact that any development proposals must meet MOD Safeguarding requirements for heights and materials, as stated in Policy 2. Policy 4 - housing mix. RAF Odiham would be keen to be involved in affordable housing for serving personnel in order to integrate fully into the Odiham community. As it stands, the vast majority of personnel are unable to afford local housing. Policy 4 states that affordable housing would be allocated to those with a local Parish Connection. We would like to understand the actual criteria for affordable housing and if this includes RAF Odiham personnel. Aims and Proposals - Traffic Management - We are extremely concerned about the safety of the junction out of RAF Odiham onto the main Alton Road. Children crossing the road to Robert Mays school and cars turning out of the junction from RAF Odiham are threatened by speeding cars approaching from the blind hill from the Alton direction. We would like to see a proposal regarding traffic lights or alternative traffic calming measures being discussed.
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission 51 RG29 1JX Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 2. Housing Development Sites: OPC is having to take an unacceptable number of new houses thanks to government policy, HDC policies and the over-riding SPA policies outside local control. It is imperative that our growing population has access to areas of countryside to counter this urbanisation. The pre-eminent such area is that which is generally recognised as 'Odiham Deer Park'(DP). Policy 3. Local Gaps: The NPPF has watered down Local Gap policies so as to require LPAs and NP policies to be set locally. The more housing we have to accept, the 58
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
more essential that important Local Gaps are retained. In the case of the established Local Gap between Odiham and North Warnborough. This MUST keep such status for the DP, and to a lesser extent for Dunley's Hill. Policy 4. Housing Mix: Through NP policies, OPC has rightly stressed the need for affordable and smaller housing units in the face of weakened national policies. The LAST thing we need is a development of exclusive parkland executive houses in the DP! The 2009 Village Design Statement set out the parameters for our historic villages; stick to them! Policy 6. Odiham Conservation Area (OCA): The Assessment and Report of 2008 was a thorough exercise in taking an approach that has served our communities well. The DP is identified as having heritage asset status under this important NPPF policy. To suggest that the DP should be subject to 'restoration' under enabling development provisions insults the intelligence of the community, the NPSG and OPC. Policy 11. Local Green Spaces: The DP has been properly included within this list of potential LGS sites. The area of circa 100 acres historically known as the Little Park to the south of FP 21 fulfills the 3 NPPF Criteria. The fact that it overlaps the Local Gap and Character Area designations of the OCA STRENGTHENS the case for this designation; it shows community determination for the DP to be an accessible local green lung of countryside. Policy 12. Natural Environment (NE): The NE of the parish is continually being eroded and never enhanced. Population, housing, transport and infrastructure pressures all mitigateagainst retention of such NE as we are able to appreciate and actively enjoy. An irony re. the DP relates to comments that it can be 'muddy', yet many in our community actively seek more distant places to walk in boots and anoraks in pursuit of countryside pleasures. The Deer Park offers an important remnant of historic open countryside, sustained since medieval times. The NP is our opportunity to keep it that way, while still enhancing footpaths as with Greywell Moor and poor signposting, to which OPC has sadly failed to bring to the attention of HCC for at least 3 years, as proven by OPC's response to a recent FOI request. Additional Aims and Proposals. As an active supporter of SPAG, the Save the Park Action Group, please note the highly regarded, professional responses to this Pre-Submission Consultation and previous NP consultations by this spontaneously-formed, local interest group of volunteers. NPSG is invited to reject the concept of enabling development in order to fund so-called 'restoration' of the DP. The wider community probably has little idea that the site of the Mansion House known as Odiham Palace, a destination for Privy Council meetings on two of Elizabeth I's Royal Progresses in the 16C, lay between its still extant historic wall and Odiham town, then the 2nd largest in 'Southamptonshire'. The most likely site is that of the Palace Gate retirement complex. The name 'Little Park' (see Policy 11 above) relates to this association, as it does at other royal places, such as Nonsuch. This was a very large house, capable of accommodating the Queen and her retinue and, at one time, the home of Lord Walsingham. These Deer Park associations are every bit as strong as those of King John and his castle. This heritage importance, together with a countryside landscape that is little changed from long before the Enclosure Acts (see Godson's map of 1739) support my personal drive to retain the DP as LGS. Please examine the arguments and in the case of a number of OPC Members, examine your consciences too.
Response: Comments on Deer Park and related Local Gap policies noted.
59
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
52 RG29 1AT Odiham Resident of this Given all factors considered I feel the housing development sites proposed are the most suitable and subtle given parish we have to provide that amount of additional housing. I value the green spaces highlighted in the plan. The additional deer park proposals would open this site up further for use by young families in particular. There is a lack of nursery places in the area, particularly from 3 months to pre-school, so a new nursery would be of value, especially if it linked to the existing Leapfrogs pre-school.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
53 RG29 1DJ Odiham Resident of Parish E Mail 29th Nov 2015 with Attachment I am submitting these comments as a resident of the parish. (I am also professionally involved in planning). Extract from document attachment as follows: General comments Although I have quite a few comments (below), I think those involved in preparing the draft plan are to be commended for producing a relatively clear and well-considered document. However, I get the impression that some people in the parish have found the idea of submitting comments relatively intimidating. The SurveyMonkey option could have been more helpful by prompting issues to which people could respond. It would be a shame if the number of responses was suppressed as a result. Perhaps people could be given another week. Introduction & background 1. Plan C (extent of Thames Basin Heaths SPA) is not clear. In particular, the 5km zone of influence should be clearer. 2. It is not clear whether the draft Habitats Regulations Assessment, which has been submitted to Natural England, is available for consultation. Vision & objectives 1. The second set of objectives (in paragraph 2.2) is confusing, referring to ensuring ‘houses are of high quality design’ and ‘that meets the needs of the existing community, especially younger families and local people.’ This appears to attempt to link design to meeting the needs of the existing community, perhaps meaning that the designs of new houses should enable local people to move to properties that would better meet their needs. However, it’s not clear. 2. The reference (in the fourth bullet point) to pre-school places doesn’t relate to the preamble. 3. The third set of objectives, and the fourth bullet point, refer to the Parish’s ability to attract visitors, but it is not clear why it should be an objective to do so. 4. The fourth set of objectives focusses on the protection of open and green spaces but the first bullet point refers to open spaces in which residents and visitors can gather. However, it’s unclear whether there’s an identified need for such a gathering place. Land use policies 1. Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 helpfully outline the scope of this section. They emphasise the importance of the community engagement work. However, any land use plan should also take account of other evidence about, for example, the ‘types of houses or other residential accommodation’ that are most needed (third bullet point). Relevant other evidence should include strategic housing market area assessments and Hart District Council’s database of registrants seeking housing locally. Policy 1: Spatial plan for the parish 2. It goes without saying that development that accords with the NPPF and 60
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
the relevant local plan should be supported. 3. If settlement boundaries are to be drawn they should take account of such commitments as the planning permissions for development at Hatchwood Farm and behind Hatchwood Cottage. The fact that detailed plans might not have been approved for the latter (paragraph 3.10) does not alter the fact that planning permission has been granted and the site will be developed. 4. Paragraph 3.12 is confusing in its reference (in the second bullet point) to the contribution a site might make to establishing the historic significance of heritage assets. Some rewriting is needed because a site can’t establish significance (although its history and current use might be relevant to the significance of the setting of a heritage asset). 5. In the third bullet point ‘impact’ is not the appropriate word; ‘relevance’ or ‘significance’ would be better (with consequential rewording of the remainder). Policy 2: Housing development sites 1. Regarding the land at Longwood (i): a. It’s unclear how the site contributes to the significance and setting of the conservation area; b. It’s unclear why the site should be required to provide a financial contribution to the upkeep of public open space on the adjoining site as that would not be necessary to mitigate impacts of the development (and would not meet to test in the Community Infrastructure Regulations). 2. Regarding land at 4 Western Lane (ii): a. It’s unclear why it needs to be part of the policy that the existing bungalow is to be demolished; b. (as 1(a) above) it’s unclear how the site contributes to the significance and setting of the conservation area; and c. (as 1(b) above) it’s unclear why the site should be required to provide a financial contribution to the upkeep of public open space on the adjoining site as that would not be necessary to mitigate impacts of the development (and would not meet to test in the Community Infrastructure Regulations). 3. Regarding land at Crumplins Yard (iii): a. (as 1(b) and 2(c) above) it’s unclear why the site should be required to provide a financial contribution to the upkeep of public open space on the adjoining site as that would not be necessary to mitigate impacts of the development (and would not meet to test in the Community Infrastructure Regulations). 4. Regarding land next to Crownfields (vii): a. It’s unclear as to the evidence suggesting a need for a high dependency care home; b. Neither the size, shape nor extent of the site have a clear rationale, and yet it would extend the urban footprint into open countryside and would be highly visible; c. It’s superfluous to refer to MOD safeguarding requirements as these apply in any event and are not a NP policy. 5. Paragraph 3.19 implies the NPPF is part of the development plan, but it isn’t. Policy 4: Housing mix 1. The approach to the provision of affordable housing needs to take account of the government’s latest proposals as set out in the Housing and Planning bill. Policy 6: Odiham conservation area 2. As a general point, the NP should avoid simply repeating statutory requirements for the enhancement or conservation of conservation areas. 3. Policy 6(i) repeats guidance in HDC’s CA appraisal. 4. Policy 6(iii) refers to ‘spacious plots’ without defining them and suggests no development on backland sites would be acceptable. 61
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
5. Policy 6(v) also suggests no development on open green space would be acceptable. 6. Policy 6(vii) is confusing and unclear. The ‘gentle curve of the High Street’ cannot be under threat; if it was, existing statutory guidance would prevent such an impact. The phrase ‘the prominence [predominance?] of a wide mix of retail frontages and other ground floor uses’ is unclear. It is not clear what is to be retained or what degree of change would be acceptable. It is not appropriate to prevent any change so such a policy needs to identify the types of change that would be acceptable and those that might not. This sounds like a policy intended to prevent any change at all. 7. Policy 6(viii) includes the word ‘acknowledged,’ but it is not clear what that means in a draft policy. 8. It’s unclear how Policy 6(x), regarding the Bury, would assist in the determination of a planning application. 9. Policy 6(xi), relating to Church Street, adds little to the statutory requirement that conservation areas are conserved or enhanced. 10. Policy 6(xii) is unclear because, like Policy 6(viii), it includes the word ‘acknowledged’ without clarifying what that means in a draft policy. 11. It’s unclear whether Policy 6(xiii) adds anything to the guidance in the VDS (which is more comprehensive). 12. Policy 6(xiv) is unclear. In particular, it would not assist in the determination of a planning application. 13. Policy 6(xv) has no clear justification. 14. Policy 6(xvi) attempts to address the complexity of materials usage but the guidance in the VDS is more helpful and can’t readily be compressed into a policy. 15. Policies 6(xvii) and 6(xviii) restate the statutory requirement. Policy 7: North Warnborough conservation area 1. It’s not clear why density should not be allowed to increase (Policy 7(ii)). 2. The second part of Policy 7(iii) restates the statutory requirement. 3. It is unclear what Policy 7(vi) means by having ‘special regard to.’ For example, part (h) refers to certain architectural detailing but the policy is unclear as to its significance in relation to proposed new development. Policy 8: Basingstoke Canal conservation area 1. Some of the above comments also apply to this policy. In particular: a. the NP should avoid simply repeating statutory requirements for the enhancement or conservation of conservation areas; b. some of the polices are confusing and unclear; and c. it’s unclear how some of the policies would assist in the determination of planning applications. 2. Policy 8(v)(c) is, in particular, unclear because it says development proposals ‘should have regard to the contribution of the historic bridge crossings to the historic significance of the canal’ but the historic significance of the canal is what it is and is, in itself, unaffected by the bridge crossings. 3. The reference to willow trees in 8(v)(c) is unclear. Policy 9: Odiham High Street 1. Sub-paragraph (i) appears to contain an error and, presumably, the word ‘viable’ should be ‘unviable.’ 2. Sub-paragraph (ii) would benefit from some clarification as it is, presumably, intended to refer to the number of buildings in A1 use. 3. Reference to statutory obligations in paragraph 3.40 should be clarified as the requirement to conserve or enhance (‘or’ not ‘and’) applies to conservation areas (and derives from case law). 4. Paragraph 3.41 states that the current mix of uses has been deemed to be appropriate to sustain the vitality and viability of the High Street but the policy suggests 33% (of buildings? – see above) is critical. Is this consistent? 62
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Policy 11: Local Green Spaces 1. Paragraph 3.52 exaggerates the importance of the Kitchen Garden, which is an unused piece of land that is largely out of sight and the significance of which is over-stated in the draft plan. It does not warrant LGS status. 2. There is little point designating the land east of Archery Fields as LGS because planning permission has been granted for its development for housing. 3. Paragraph 3.54 exaggerates the importance of the land behind Beech Cottage. It does not warrant LGS status. 4. The proposal to designate part of the Deer Park as LGS makes sense in view of its value to the community (and other considerations, as noted). 5. Another space that warrants LGS designation is the paddock immediately to the west of Hatchwood Farm as it is valuable open space forming part of the setting of the listed farm buildings and it is used for recreational purposes (linked to the fact that a well-used footpath crosses it, and this path will become used even more when the Hatchwood Farm residential development is occupied). Policy 12: The Natural Environment 1. The use of the word ‘shall’ (eg in paragraphs 3.59, 3.62 and 3.63) should be reconsidered as these paragraphs are not policies but supporting text. Aims and proposals 2. Paragraph 4.2 should make it clear that the houses contemplated would be affordable housing. Proposals Map – Inset 1 3. The map should not show the land east of Archery Fields as LGS as permission has been granted for its development for housing. 4. Similarly, the land at Hatchwood Farm should be shown as a housing site (as it has permission and is being developed). 5. LGS sites 11(iv) and 11(vi) do not warrant LGS status. 6. The paddock to the south/west of Hatchwood Farm should be designated as LGS.
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate changes made to the Plan for Submission 54 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 29th Nov 2015 with Attachment. Overall. This is a very important document and will shape how the area is used for years to come. I am very pleased that the community has been allowed to input into this document – which is essential if it is to pass the referendum. It is evident that much work has gone into the research, consultations, analysis, and drafting of this Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and I sincerely thank the whole Steering Group (SG) for all their work; it is greatly appreciated. Refer to the Word document attachment for details. Thank you once again to the SG for all the hard work that has gone into developing this Neighbourhood Plan. It is important that this influential document reflects the community’s views. Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
63
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
55 RG29 1JY Odiham Resident of Parish E Mail 29th Nov 2015 A village requires a post office, a basic food shop, a school for juniors, and a High Street NOT end to end packed with cars. A village needs green space around it and only BASIC recreation facilities, in the case of Odiham, the historic Canal, the Deer Park walks, the beautiful church and Bury, and almost countless listed buildings. There is NO REQUIREMENT FOR ANYTHING further.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
56 RG29 1LU Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 29 Nov 2015 I adopt and endorse the comments made by SPAG supporting the view that the Deer Park should be preserved as a Local Green Space and opposing plans to develop it.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
57 RG29 1AS Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 29th Nov 2015 This mail is being sent to register my strong endorsement of the SPAG submission of 19th Nov 2015.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
58 RG29 1AE Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 27th Nov 2015 I think that you have done an excellent job in putting together a satisfactory plan. The only additional point I would wish to make at this point is that I strongly support the Deer Park being designated as a Local Green Space and I remain very opposed to the proposed development of the park.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
64
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
59 RG29 1BY Greywell Resident elsewhere I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on Deptford Lane (site number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish. Having previously lived in an area effected by urban sprawl (Ash Vale / Aldershot / Farnborough) I can appreciate the importance of maintaining some separation between adjacent towns and villages. Without this any sense of community and rural identity will be lost forever along with the beauty of our Hampshire countryside. Certainly in Ash Vale there is nowhere near the sense of community that I now enjoy in Greywell and I believe this is because Ash Vale is now just another suburb of Aldershot or Farnborough and no longer a community in its own right. I hope that with this neighbourhood plan the planning mistakes of the past can be avoided in the future. I feel that there are many brownfield sites in the local area that could be used for housing without threatening the precious countryside. A good example of this would be former office blocks in Hook which are being converted into flats. Projects such as this would seem more beneficial than building more houses on green belt land. Flats can accommodate more people and such sites already have excellent transport links and facilities.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
60 RG29 1LG Odiham Resident of this Disagree with the recommendation that the views looking north from the Canal from the By-pass bridge to Broad parish Oak are of any importance.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
61 RG29 1FJ Odiham Resident of Parish This plan has put forward a very balanced proposal for the future of Odiham. It has retained the very essential green spaces,especially the Deer Park which preserves the rural aspect of the village and also its unique heritage.The sites for new houses have been carefully chosen but we must be mindful of the extra pressure put on schools etc if too many houses are built.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
65
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
62 RG29 1PF Odiham Resident of Parish As instructed ,I am submitting a full list of comments, regardless of the fact that many of these will already have been input to the plan preparation process during the whole of its gestation since 2014. Policy 1, relating to "Odiham and North Warnborough" encapsulates one of the fundamental shortcomings of the ONWARDPLAN in that it gives inadequate attention and focus to any of the other settlements that are an essential part of the parish (=neighbourhood, in this context). One of Hart DC's "main villages" (viz. RAF Odiham) and hamlets of Potbridge, Whitehall, Bartley Heath, Hillside, Broad Oak, Roke, Lodge Farm and some smaller groupings have been ignored by the Neighbourhood Plan. Ommission of RAFO has avoided consideration of the special planning regime that prevails inside the MoD security fence whereby normal planning applications are not determined by the District Council. During preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, new planning consents for more than the whole 16 year requirements of this Plan (max. 200 dwelling units) have been allowed, and additionally a similar number have been built and occupied. This suggests to me that there is a fundamental flaw in the way the plan process has been set out. The "settlement boundaries" have not been considered in the process of producing the plan. The detailed position of the boundary is unclear , not being shown on any of the detailed site plans i- vii, nor on the Conservation Area maps.They appear to remain unchanged from the boundary shown in the saved Hart Local Plan. Infrastructure: The Plan's vision for 2032 states that we will have improved footpaths and cycleways to connect settlements.... and elsewhere an objective to ensure sustainable new development. concentrating on sites adjacent to existing settlement boundaries. Nowhere in the Plan does it show any existing nor proposed cycleways. It seems obvious to suggest that cycle routes to Hook and Winchfield stations , linking all residential areas to the schools, and the principal visitor attractions must be added to the proposals so that they can be achieved as adjacent land is developed. Cycle sustainability was an important feature of public feedback in early consultations. The High Street looks like a key element of a cycleway network for the village. Traffic calming the High Street could have a dual role of improving the environment for pedestrian users and making it a more useable link in a cycle network. Much is made of the suggestion of using "brownfield" land but none is identified in the Plan. As I understand the term all of the land within the RAF security fence should be regarded as brownfield, i.e. previously developed, which would throw an entirely different light on the future shape of the parish if the proposed plan were then followed to its logical conclusion. "Winchtown" could end up in a very different situation. Response: Points concerning the inclusion of RAF housing have been checked. Other comments considered and no direct changes to plan result. 63 RG29 1DW North Warnborough Resident of Parish I agree with the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
66
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
64 RG29 1AE Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 2 - new Housing sites. I believe we do not need the likes of the Wates and Deer Park additions to be warranted with the balance of the 85 unsold Charles Church units that in themselves will spoil the tranquility and charm of Odiham. Policy 11 - Green space - The Deer Park proposals despite the offer of cash and community land is just not in keeping with ensureing that green belt is maintained between North Wanborough, Hartley Witney and Odiham. Policy 8 - Basingstoke Canal. I believe this hidden gem is under valued by the community and the tow paths need upgrading for easier us by the joggers, walkers, the elderly, wheelchairs etc and needs specific investment from the local Parish Council to supplement the County maintenance and staff input .
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
65 RG29 1BX Greywell Resident elsewhere I am in favour of the proposed neighbourhood plan with particular regard to maintaining the gap between Greywell, where I am a resident and North Warnborough. It would be very disappointing if these settlements were to merge as I feel that each has its own identity. In my opinion, this would be lost should the gaps between them be filled.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
66 RG29 1HP Odiham Resident of Parish 1. I am very impressed by the work and diligence I have seen and heard from The OPC steering group - well done. 2. I am concerned about the proposed development of the green space areas, particularly the area behind Beech Cottage in King Street. This is a beautiful area and any increase in King Street traffic would, in my opinion, make a very difficult road dangerous. 3. Odiham is a beautiful environment and we owe it to the future residents to protect what we have, although allowing appropriate development.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
67 RG29 1AQ Odiham Resident of Parish High Street: sitting in local cafes and restaurants, or trying to reverse out of parking on the High Street, it is obvious that there are a lot of near misses and traffic travels too fast. Reducing to 20mph or sleeping policemen are a good idea, especially as more pedestrians are crossing near the new Co-op. Slowing traffic will increase safety Special Facilities: However we do not want any encroachment on the Deer park, for parking, nor do we need another community centre. There are several available already and plans for alterations in the Church will create another big community space.
67
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
68 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish I am satisfied that the community has done its best at this stage to protect the Deer Park from housing development by including it in the list of places to be considered for LGS status.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
69 RG29 1LN Odiham Resident of Parish I support strongly the proposal in the Neighbourhood Plan for The Deer Park, historically The Little Park, to be a Local Green Space. It is such a defining feature of Odiham.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
70 RG29 1BG North Warnborough Resident elsewhere I am in favour of the Odiham Onward Plan. I am particulaly supportive of the local gap proposed between N Warnborough and Greywell. I think it is important to retain the countryside and the footpaths as we enjoy walking our dog through the fields. I am also worried that if there is a lot of building in N Warnborough then the Street will be very dangerous to walk along, as there is no room for passing cars and no pavements. It will spoil the N Warnborough conservation area.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
71 RG29 1PJ Odiham Resident of Parish Re care home at Crownfields - is this meant to be just for one type of occupant ie high dependent or a mix of need? How was its type decided? Which company will run it? Re Close Meadow - agree views and proximity to historic church of importance. Re Library building - this is officially known as The Bridewell and currently owned by the Hampshire Library service (I think). They let some rooms out to the other services within the building. Do please check this out as I may well be wrong. Re Other - many thanks to everyone involved for all their time and work involved in producing such a comprehensive plan. Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
72 RG29 1AF Odiham Resident of Parish I am supportive of the conclusions in the plan
68
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
73 TQ5 0EH Resident elsewhere I have known Odiham for over 40 years with friends of my parents living here. I nearly bought here 2 years ago This is a clever and well thought out plan so I totally support the neighbourhood plan. It is important that the local gap between Odiham and North Warnborugh is maintained. Parking used to be free and now the paid for car parks are underused.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
74 SW15 2AT Resident Elsewhere I live part time in Odiham and fully support the neighbourhood plan, extremely well thought out. We did live in North Warnborough before Odiham and I think it key for both places the local Gap is maintained
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 75 RG29 1AJ Odiham Resident of Parish I fully support the neighbourhood plan as I feel it is extremely well thought out. Critical issues have been addressed such as protecting the local gap and the thorny subject of parking. If parking was free in the underused car parks another issue would be partially addressed.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
76 RG29 1AJ Odiham Resident of Parish I fully support the neighbourhood plan as it is extremely well though out. I would like to be able to afford to buy here so like the housing plan proposals. Parking is a problem though with the traffic deflected from the High Street to surrounding roads instead of free parking for workers on the minimum wage.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
77 GU14 6FL Farnborough Landowner or You've put that views across the file at Mill Lane to be an important view however there are now ~40 land owners representative who have bought plots of land in this field. I've been told by the auctioneers that these are all private buyers which indicates that they would likely be self builders and intend to live there. This was certainly my intent however now I'm tempted to dump the land and look elsewhere.
69
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
78 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish Policy 2:- vi. Hook Road - this site should not have been selected for housing development over Archery Fields, this was due to mis-scoring failing to recognise that Hook Road is outside the settlement boundary, within 2 x Conservation Areas and a SSSI, and is naturally a water meadow already subject to significant flooding of surrounding Grade II listed buildings. This has now been demonstrated by the rejection of proposals for Hook Road but acceptance of equally dense proposals for Archery Fields by the Hart District Council planning committee. vii. Crownfields - this site if developed should be low level affordable housing, not a massive high dependence nursing home and expanded pre-school nursery; there was no evidence for the latter during the two previous community engagement rounds. Policy 3. para 3.25 - Warmly support the proposed new local gap North Warnborough to Greywell. Policies 7. & 8. North Warnborough & Basingstoke Canal Conservation Areas - support these policies, which if implemented properly should improve the quality and design over other recently developments which affect these CAs. Policy 11. Local Green Spaces:- iii. Hockleys Farm & vii Deer Park - support these two LGS proposals in particular as they represent the extended ends of the Odiham to North Warnborough Gap. v. Archery Fields - this should have been proposed for housing development (at least the half of the site on the Odiham side) in preference to Hook Road ; as housing development has now been accepted by Hart District Council on this site, it should not be proposed as Local Green Space. vi. Beech Cottage - whilst appreciated by those whose houses enjoy views over it, this cannot be classed as LGS as it is not demonstrably special to most residents and general public, who do not have access to and cannot see it. Policy 12. Natural Environment - strongly support the entire policy as vitally important.
Response: Comments and views noted. Plan amended re Archery Fields 79 RG29 1AJ Odiham Resident of Parish I fully support the neighbourhood plan, extremely well though out. Critical issues such as protecting the local gap and addressing the thorny subject of parking. Given the extra council tax that will be generated from new houses if parking was free in the underused car parks another issue would be partially addressed
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
70
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
80 RG29 1PJ Odiham Resident of Parish We object to the allocation at Crownfields, site 2.vii. To add development at the south of Odiham as at this site would create more traffic through the entire length both Odiham and North Warnborough and the roads are not currently equipped to cope. Furthermore it would set a precedent for further future development of this site since there is no natural southern boundary, which is not in keeping with the principles of sustainable development. In addition, the entrance to this site as shown is at the southern edge of the site and that is in a rather dangerous position given the very limited site lines and the proximity of the brow of the hill on Alton Road. If this site were to be developed then at the very least the entrance should be at the northern edge of the site and the 30mph zone should be extended a considerable distance southwards, perhaps even to the junction with RAF Odiham. We also consider that the designated open space at Close Meadow (site 11.i) could accept a limited amount of development around the edge of the site. This would enable and facilitate a public and well used open space to be created on the site, perhaps with a village green, paid for and maintained by the proceeds from development. This would enable a high class approach to be created from the west to the Church and the Bury, instead of the poor quality footpath that we have at present. That would open up the church and the Bury to better usage and create better views to and from the church which at the moment is obscured and not used effectively. The Bury is a jewel in the crown of Odiham but at the moment is in dire need of upgrading. Finally, I would like to thank the committee for their energy and efforts in preparing the plan.
Response: Comments noted – no changes to plan proposed 81 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish Policy 2:- vi. Hook Road - this site should not have been selected for housing development over Archery Fields, this was due to mis-scoring failing to recognise that Hook Road is outside the settlement boundary, within 2 x Conservation Areas and a SSSI, and is naturally a water meadow already subject to significant flooding of surrounding Grade II listed buildings. This has now been demonstrated by the rejection of proposals for Hook Road but acceptance of equally dense proposals for Archery Fields by the Hart District Council planning committee. vii. Crownfields - this site if developed should be low level affordable housing, not a massive high dependence nursing home and expanded pre-school nursery; there was no evidence for the latter during the two previous community engagement rounds. Policy 3. para 3.25 - Warmly support the proposed new local gap North Warnborough to Greywell. Policies 7. & 8. North Warnborough & Basingstoke Canal Conservation Areas - support these policies, which if implemented properly should improve the quality and design over other recently developments which affect these CAs. Policy 11. Local Green Spaces:- iii. Hockleys Farm & vii Deer Park - support these two LGS proposals in particular as they represent the extended ends of the Odiham to North Warnborough Gap. v. Archery Fields - this should have been proposed for housing development (at least the half of the site on the Odiham side) in preference to Hook Road vi. Beech Cottage - whilst appreciated by those whose houses enjoy views over it, this cannot be classed as LGS as it is not demonstrably special to most residents and general public, who do not have access to and cannot see it. Policy 12. Natural Environment - strongly support the entire policy as vitally important.
71
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: see response to comment 78. Wording on consultation reviewed to take account of related comments.
82 RG29 1TJ ODIHAM Resident of Parish The plan seems sensible, and the numbers just bout in line with those from the district level, but the types of housing built to date have skewed the market in Odiham towards medium size houses with too many small rooms and insufficient parking. There is a demand for medium sized, more spacious, houses for residents to downsize from, releasing larger houses for younger families without the present owners leaving the village. I would like to see some reflection of this in the plan.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
83 RG29 1AP Odiham Resident of Parish I would like to thank everyone involved in the preparation of the plan which must have been extraordinarily complex to compile, taking into account such a wide range of views and interests It is of course impossible to represent every interest but I believe the outcome is excellent and sets a great blueprint for development in and around our neighbourhood for the coming generation Thank you - I support the plan as drafted
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result.
84 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish Local Gaps: The 2 local gaps in this Plan are very important to stop the villages merging into one town. That would destroy the character of these lovely villages. Housing Mix: I would like to see a higher percentage of new houses only available to those with long-term connections to the village. LGS: The 7 proposed sites are all important to keep as LGS, otherwise the village will expand into these important and valued green spaces. These green spaces add to the great feeling of living in the countryside as they allow people to enjoy the countryside and to use the countryside to walk and play in. The most important of all of the LGS is the Deer Park as it is so close and offers villagers the opportunity to walk in the beautiful countryside right in the heart of the village. The other LGS are important, but do not add such a network of footpaths for us all to enjoy the LGS from.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 85 RG29 1EU North Warnborough Resident of Parish Policy 2 Housing development sites: Land behind Albion Yard - 12 houses and possible redevelopment of The Swan plus parking for visitors to King John castle is overdevelopment and would be out of character with the surrounding area. Land off Hook road North Warnborough - it is preferable to have no development on this flood plane however the NP proposal to separate the two sites and the reduced nu,bet of houses does seem 72
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
reasonable. There is a great danger of damaging the integrity of the canal bank if a road were to be sited between the proposed two sites and this was one of the reasons why Hart refused permission earlier this year. Policy 11 Local green spaces: Why are there still no LGS in North Warborough, Broad Oak, Mill Corner and Derbyfields? Land to the east of Archery Fields should be withdrawn as it does not meet any of the criteria for LGS and conversely does meet the criteria for a housing site. In my opinion the Deer Park should be retained as a LGS. Traffic: Why is it stated that only Odiham High Street should benefit from an imposed 20mph limit and Hook Road in North Warnborough does not feature and yet is just as deserving if not more so? I would like to thank the NP group for your hard work and consultation.
Response: Comments noted. Plan amended re Archery Fields. 86 RG29 1JX Odiham Resident of Parish Congratulations to all who were involved in compiling this very good plan. It has my full support. In particular I would like to commend the imaginative and elegant way in which Policy 2 proposes solutions to meet the target for more housing. I also fully agree with Policy 11 which is so important in preserving the character and ambience of Odiham and its neighbouring settlements which we are so lucky to be a part of. There are a few minor editorial errors in some places in the script. And the drawings in Policy 2 vi showing Hook Road developments Northern and Southern are difficult for the reader to connect. A ditch(?) in the south does not go anywhere in the north and various areas of blue in the south are not explained.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 87 RG29 1BD North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support this plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
88 RG29 1HG Odiham Resident of Parish I should like to commend the NPSG for all the excellent work that has gone into this document. Having lived in the Parish for most of the last 30 years I have seen many changes and think that this plan provides a sound basis for managing the changes that will inevitably take place over the coming 17 years....provided it is implemented in full. The rural nature of the parish is its defining characteristic and the importance of the local green spaces identified in the plan are crucial to maintaining this character. Likewise the gaps between the villages must be maintained to prevent the coalescence of the the two villages within the parish and also preventing Greywell and North Warnborough from merging.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 73
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
89 RG29 1HG North Warnborough Resident of Parish As a young person who has lived in the parish since I was a small child I would like to make my home here but am unable to afford accommodation. I think therefore that provision of affordable housing for young people with local connections is very important. One of the key characteristics of the parish is its rural nature and I therefore think that all the local green spaces that are contained in the Plan are very important to maintaining that character. Likewise the gaps are crucial in enabling each of the villages to retain their distinct natures.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
90 RG29 1NG Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 1 - spatial plan Agree with recommendations; reasonable targets planned in terms of numbers, and agree with local gaps between Odiham and NW, and NW and Greywell. Policy 2 - housing development sites Agree with recommendations - each feels like it could be developed without major impact on either street scene, local gaps and general historic importance. Policy 3 - local gaps Agree with recommendations; important not to allow sprawl and keep individual villages distinct. Policy 4 - housing mix Agree with recommendations; feel strongly that we need a broader mix of house sizes in the villages to ensure sustainability of villages. Drive both for younger families, although I think there will be a reasonable number now with Hatchwood, but also for high quality homes for older people, so they don’t hang on to bigger family housing for which they no longer need the space. Policy 5 - general design principles Agree with recommendations - important that housing should neither be intrusive, overly dense, nor should they all look the same. The charm of the villages lies in the different buildings reflecting history and fashion. I am already worried by what has become the default conservation style building proposed for land behind Beech Cottage, Farnham road etc, that tries to be sympathetic, but en masse will look artificial and contrived. I particularly support the recommendation about glimpsed and wider views - these are crucial to be preserved, e.g. land next to Archery fields, Dulness Hill. Policy 6 - conservation area Odiham Agree with recommendations - critical that the high street is protected, its style, variety and mix of retail and residential. Parking has ruined the Bury; I should prefer this to be limited. Agree with conservation protection amendments. View across south fields from land next to archery fields is too important to lose as one enters the village. Policy 7 - conservation area NW Agree with recommendations. Policy 8 - canal Agree with recommendations - important to retain natural borders on to the canal, e.g. obtrusive fencing. Policy 9 - high street Agree with recommendations - strongly agree with need to stop encroachment of residential housing on the high street, e.g. former co-op. Balance supported between retail and restaurant. Policy 10 - education robert mays is a local attractor because of its good reputation, so its development should be supported. Policy 10 - local green spaces Generally agree with recommendation to protect spaces but some of those listed appear odd. Kitchen Garden has never been used as such, so not sure why it shouldn’t be infilled to build a couple of houses in this area. I strongly oppose the volume and disruption Beech Cottage will cause, but to call it a green space is a nonsense - only a few houses are able to enjoy it. If it were opened to the public, I might be more supportive. Land adjacent to archery fields should be protected as everyone in the village can enjoy this lovely vista on entering the village. Policy 12 - natural environment Agree with recommendations . Policy 13 - assets of 74
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
community value Agree with recommendations, except Baker Hall - location good, but not valued like Cross Barn. Aims Agree with recommendations. Traffic could be improved up to King Street as I fear this beautiful historic road will be permanently damaged. I would prefer the RAF bus to be reinstated to minimise the chaos around school times, which will be set to increase unless more parking is provided around the schools. The village badly needs a decent playground. I would have expected that one could have been funded by a developer. The small one by the tennis courts is for very young children, younger than 5. Crondall playground is a good example of what can be done for real advantage to the community.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
91 RG29 1NG Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 1 - spatial plan Agree with recommendations; reasonable targets planned in terms of numbers, and agree with local gaps between Odiham and NW, and NW and Greywell Policy 2 - housing development sites Agree with recommendations - each feels like it could be developed without major impact on either street scene, local gaps and general historic importance Policy 3 - local gaps Agree with recommendations; important not to allow sprawl and keep individual villages distinct Policy 4 - housing mix Agree with recommendations; feel strongly that we need a broader mix of house sizes in the villages to ensure sustainability of villages.Drive both for younger families, although I think there will be a reasonable number now with Hatchwood, but also for high quality homes for older people, so they don’t hang on to bigger family housing for which they no longer need the space Policy 5 - general design principles Agree with recommendations - important that housing should neither be intrusive, overly dense, nor should they all look the same. The charm of the villages lies in the different buildings reflecting history and fashion. I am already worried by what has become the default conservation style building proposed for land behind Beech Cottage, Farnham road etc, that tries to be sympathetic, but en masse will look artificial and contrived. I particularly support the recommendation about glimpsed and wider views - these are crucial to be preserved, e.g. land next to Archery fields, Dulness Hill Policy 6 - conservation area Odiham Agree with recommendations - critical that the high street is protected, its style, variety and mix of retail and residential. Parking has ruined the Bury; I should prefer this to be limited. Agree with conservation protection amendments. View across south fields from land next to archery fields is too important to lose as one enters the village Policy 7 - conservation area NW Agree with recommendations Policy 8 - canal Agree with recommendations - important to retain natural borders on to the canal, e.g. obtrusive fencing Policy 9 - high street Agree with recommendations - strongly agree with need to stop encroachment of residential housing on the high street, e.g. former co-op. Balance supported between retail and restaurant. Policy 10 - education robert mays is a local attractor because of its good reputation, so its development should be supported. Policy 10 - local green spaces Generally agree with recommendation to protect spaces but some of those listed appear odd. Kitchen Garden has never been used as such, so not sure why it shouldn’t be infilled to build a couple of houses in this area. I strongly oppose the volume and disruption Beech Cottage will cause, but to call it a green space is a nonsense - only a few houses are able to enjoy it. If it were opened to the public, I might be more supportive. Land adjacent 75
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
to archery fields should be protected as everyone in the village can enjoy this lovely vista on entering the village. Policy 12 - natural environment Agree with recommendations Policy 13 - assets of community value Agree with recommendations, except Baker Hall - location good, but not valued like Cross Barn. Aims Agree with recommendations. Traffic could be improved up to King Street as I fear this beautiful historic road will be permanently damaged. I would prefer the RAF bus to be reinstated to minimise the chaos around school times, which will be set to increase unless more parking is provided around the schools. The village badly needs a decent playground. I would have expected that one could have been funded by a developer. The small one by the tennis courts is for very young children, younger than 5. Crondall playground is a good example of what can be done for real advantage to the community.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
92 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish Green spaces are equally as important as housing in any community.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
93 RG29 1DD Greywell Resident elsewhere I strongly support the Local Gap proposed between North Warnborough and Greywell
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
94 RG29 1LT Odiham Resident of Parish I would like to thank the team who prepared this excellent plan for all the time and effort they have put in to it. I will be supporting the plan.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 95 RG29 1JY Odiham Resident of Parish I have lived here since 1957, when Odiham was a village. The attraction for newcomers to Odiham is that it is NOT a town. Any development obviously will make it more of a town with facilities, shops and parking, and less of a village with simple living, less traffic, and the necessity to to find facilities elsewhere. The continued separation of Odiham and North Warnborough is imperative, and future development should be the minimum possible.
76
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
96 RG29 1NQ Odiham Resident of Parish Building sites location Since the previous roadshows in the summer in the light of the current governments autumn statement, I believe that these plans will just be swept aside by the government. In the light of this i believe that it would have been better to identify one large site, possible crownfields/Alton rd, and propose to build the whole requirement in one place, there would then be a better case to provide infrastructure etc. sadly since the 1990s more than half of the small builders would would build on these small plots have gone out of business, and house building is nearly all restricted to 5major large companies, and they just wont settle for these small plots, we can see that from the current building and proposals on the farnham road. There will be continual large applications reapplied again and again appeals etc which cost hart dearly, and believe in the end they will be accepted. Better to be prepared with one site to offer as an alternative. Agree there is big need for rural exemption scheme. My views on this whole project have changed in the light of current policies. High street. High Street, it is hard to promote local businesses when our local towns are so near, as for coffee shops restaurants , well we do have 7 already, which I think is about the most we can support. Think cycleways would be underused.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 97 RG29 1HF North Warnborough Resident of Parish I was unable to attend the meeting when the OPC voted to accept the draft NP and submit the contents for a six week pre submission consultation. As a parish councillor and resident I wish to confirm my full support for all the plan policies as contained in the pre-submission draft.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
98 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Strongly support the onward plan, particularly the designation of a local gap between Greywell and North Warnborough.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
99 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish E mail 28 Nov 2015 I approve of the Neighbourhood Plan for Odiham and North Warnborough. I am pleased that no large areas of housing are proposed and that a gap is to be retained between North Warnborough and Greywell. I hope this will mean that no housing development will take place on the field adjoining Deptford Lane
77
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
100 RG29 1AD Odiham Resident of Parish I think the local plan has been very well thought out, it is just unfortunate that some planning submissions have already started and it is unlikely to be stopped now (Archery Fields). I am in full support of housing for local people and small affordable homes in order to allow the younger generation to continue living in the area, otherwise it is not a balanced community.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
101 RG29 1NS Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 2: In policy two a couple of the sites have been mislabelled. Sites 2.i and 2.ii are located and accessed via West Street not Western Lane as stated in the plan. I am concern about the proposed access to these sites on to West Street as this is a busy school road on weekdays. I oppose to site 2.v of Western Lane, this infringes on the existing gap and would creates future opportunities for infill on the open space. I also have concerns about site vii Crownfields. Building on this site will impact on views to the conservation area even with a building height restriction. This view is marked on the draft plan (p.42, Plan D: Odiham Conservation Area Views) as an important view. Policy 3: I am pleased with and support the selection of local green spaces. However I feel proposing to turn site 11.ii Dunleys Hill into a village green will spoil the current character of the "gap" and will cause the two communities on either side to merge into one. This site should still be considered a green space but I would prefer any references to a village green to be removed. Additional Aims and Proposals: In the traffic management section I don't see the need to investigate 20mph speed limits. During peak times the traffic in Odiham high street the traffic hardly moves. A lower speed limit will simply be an annoyance when area is not busy.
Response: Comments noted and matters of fact checked – no changes 102 RG29 1FA Odiham Resident of Parish Local Green Spaces and Local Heritage. The urban sprawl which is engulfing the south eastern part of England will slowly engulf Odiham and its surrounds and destroy our open spaces and heritage, and we must recognise this if not for ourselves but for the generations that follow us. The Deer Park in particular is a unique part of our heritage and we should not surrender this beautiful space which so many people use and treasure for the sake of new houses and additional car parks. Odiham as a town has been built up over hundreds of years, so are we going to be the generation that gives it all away for the sake of a few people who value money over our green and pleasant land? Now is the time to recognise the seriousness of the threat that all this brings and be realistic and recognise for instance that we have adequate parking in Odiham, but if we start surrendering our lovely green spaces we will never reclaim them, rather they will be eroded until they cease to exist. 78
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
103 RG29 1FA Odiham Resident of Parish Local Gaps:- The retention of local gaps between Odiham & North Warnborough, and North Warnborough and Greywell are important to me. Local Green Spaces and Heritage:- These are vital, the Deer Park particularly so. Protection of this space must be retained. Should any development of the Deer Park be allowed there will be little or nothing to prevent Odiham, in the near future, becoming an urban sprawl, such as has happened in Farnham, i.e.Farnham/Wrecclesham/ Boundstone/Rowledge. In the last 40 years the village of Boundstone has completely disappeared; it is now part of Wrecclesham. The Deer Park is a valued space and has been for many hundreds of years. It is used on a daily basis by people for recreation. Parking:- Now that there is additional parking just off the High Street behind the Co-Op, the need for extra parking has decreased, if not disappeared. The existing car park at the rear of the higher end of the High Street is rarely full. 2 regular visitors to Odiham I asked, never use it. They prefer to park in the High Street. Housing Development:- This should be confined within the present boundaries of Odiham and North Warnborough, so that the dreaded Urban Sprawl is not allowed to happen.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
104 RG29 1BA North Warnborough Resident of Parish I would support the recommendations of the local plan. The local gap keeps the integrity of the village, a building development on the space (Deptford Lane) would merge three villages and lose the distinction with Greywell. Futhermore the gaps will help protect the habitat and historical interest of the area. If more stock is definitely required, the mix of stock seems to support the requirements for a diversity of population (e.g number of small houses, provision for elderly care for example). I believe it would be easier to integrate stock without impacting the character of Odiham and North Warnborough, or putting too much stress on the infrastructure with the selected number of small developments rather than the large sites. This also keeps the right balance between housing and natural open space (by not developing Deer Park or Deptford Lane). I also believe there is already sufficient leisure and commerce facilities in the area, and within easy travel without having to plan for more. There is existing capacity without needing to create more. I have observed this after living in the village for over 30 years.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
79
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
105 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Strongly endorse the Plan especially the creation of a local gap between N Warnborough and Greywell.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 106 RG29 1AJ Odiham Resident of Parish I support the Onward Plan and think that the team has done an excellent job. My only concern is the future of the Deer Park and hope that the Open Green Status can be maintained. Ideally the Deer Park should remain as agricultural land as this is in keeping with the character of Odiham and North Warnborough. I have misgivings about the proposal presented by Bell Cornwell. The presence of the proposed house in the middle of the Deer Park could be the thin end of a very long wedge for further development and would change the character of the Deer Park. As regards the herd of deer we have heard nothing about who will look after them. As the owner has not even kept his ditches maintained, hence the mess at certain crossing places, I have my doubts as to whether he understands what is involved in keeping a herd of deer.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
107 RG29 1AS Odiham Resident of Parish P1 - Agree P2 - Agree P3 - Totally agree this is fundamental if we are to avoid "urban sprawl" P4 - Agree but suggest it should be flexible and have periodic reviews P5 - Agree but should allow some flexibility for good contemporary design P6 - Totally agree in particular in respect for the Deer Park and the land south of Farnham Road which should not be built on P7 - Agree but as in P5 with some architectural flexibility P8 - Agree P9 - Agree P10 - Agree P11- Totally agree in particular items iv), v), and vii) as in P6 P12 - Agree P13 - Agree Sports facilities should be considered as an additional policy item
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
108 RG29 1AT Odiham Resident of Parish Recognising the extensive consultation that it reflects, I support the Neighbourhood Plan as a relevant contribution towards shaping the future of our community.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
80
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
109 RG29 1PF Odiham Resident of Parish 1.Housing development sites:- I agree broadly with the conclusions reached in the Neighbourhood Plan. I have followed the consultations with interest, and I have been impressed by the amount of hard work and dedication that has gone into producing the plan. 2. Local green spaces:- I have followed keenly the arguments relating to the Deer Park. I note that in the Neighbourhood Plan Summary only 'an area of the Deer Park' is mentioned for inclusion in that category. I would very much hope that all, or the greater part of the deer park would be preserved. In particular, I am particularly opposed to the idea of ANY houses being built there. (I have recently been on a guided walk over the area with a local historian.)The reasons for my opinions on the Deer Park have been very adequately summarised by the protagonists of the Save the Park Action Group, with whom I am broadly in agreement. I am sure they will already have acquainted you with their views.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 110 RG29 1HG North Warnborough Resident of Parish As a young person on low wages I want to see affordable housing for people with local connections. I have lived in the parish since I was a child and don't want to have to leave to find accommodation. I like the rural nature of Odiham and want to see that retained for the future. The local green spaces in the plan are all important in retaining the character of the village. Likewise the gaps are important to stop the villages merging together. As a keen sportsman I'd like to see improved sporting facilities. The AstroTurf pitch at RMS is great facility and the village needs more places to play team sports.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
111 RG29 1LF Odiham Resident of Parish Conservation Area: These must be protected and the NP sets out to support this aim. The NP is backed by local people and there has been huge interest in is development. It needs to be made law as soon as possible because in the meantime many developers are attempting to take advantage of the situation and threatening to destroy the aspirations of local people who settled here because it a semi rural and not a large urban community. The many heritage assets need to be conserved for future generations and this NP, with the full support of the community will protect the Conservation areas. Local green spaces: These have been identified within the NP and are fully supported by the residents. It is a communal decision as to which areas of the town should not be developed and alternative areas have been identified for development instead. Local green spaces are vital amenity areas inside the settlement boundary. Size of developments: Everyone wants to see small new developments and brown sites need to be developed first. The NP has the backing of local residents, is the fairest way to approach local development and the only protective tool we have as a community, to resist the persistent speculative development that we are seeing.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 81
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
112 RG29 1LF Odiham Resident of Parish Conservation Area: This is an historic settlement and must be treated with great care if the heritage assets of which there are many, particularly in the High Street and Bury, are to be conserved for future generations. In particular, care must be taken to apply all planning legislation which protects the Conservation Area. This NP, with the full support of the community will protect the Conservation areas. Local green spaces: The NP is fully supported by the residents and as such it is a community decision as to which areas of the town should Not be developed. These must be protected as it is the collective will of residents and alternative areas have been identified for development instead. Local green spaces are vital amenity areas inside the settlement boundary. Size of developments: These must be small so that they fit into what is a small community and those areas, agreed by residents, for development are almost areas which are brown sites.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 113 RG29 1AH Odiham Resident of Parish I have been impressed with the process that the Steering Group have followed in drafting this submission. The local community have been fully engaged and their views have been distilled into a robust set of policies which now underpin the proposed plan. In particular I fully support the preferences for maintaining village gaps, green space and for smaller developments and for smaller properties within those developments, since I have seen so many small local properties extended into large properties in my 25 years in Odiham. There is reference within the submission to a proposal to "restore" the Deer Park. This proposal would deny public access across a much valued open space and degrade the pleasant views across it to the north, replacing it with private corrals for deer which are too small for them to exist unmanaged. While it is noted that there have been considerable local objections to that proposal, it is not clear whether the Parish Council is in favour or against. I believe the Parish Council should reflect the views of the majority of the community in this submission and state that the Deer Park proposal should be resisted.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
114 RG29 1EA North Warnborough Consultee I am the joint owner of Puddleducks Montessori Nursery School based at North Warnborough Village Hall. We are one of the pre-school providers mentioned in the plan. I have a few concerns regarding the stated number of spaces available and the number of potential spaces available to children in the area. I am unsure how many of the 125 places you mention are apportioned to us because I was only asked how many families were on our books not how many spaces or potential spaces I had. I would like to propose that this figure is not truly accurate nor does it take into account the possibility of us extending our sessions into the afternoons or us expanding our capacity by moving into the large hall. We currently operate all day Monday and Tues-Fri mornings and based on this school year we have a total of 32 spaces made up of 3-4 years on 15 hours and 2 year olds. This does not take into account potential for expansion into the afternoon sessions. This would increase the spaces on offer to potentially 48 spaces made up of 3-4 year olds on 15 hours and 2 year olds. We are currently in the small hall but 82
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
there may be potential to expand into the large hall which would enable us to have more children per session and therefore to offer even more places. As far as the 30 hours is concerned it is still unclear who will actually be entitled to this - the only certainty is that both parents must be working. It is therefore difficult to predict how many spaces would be on offer. Based on our current parents it would probably be in the region of 38 - 48 spaces. Based on these figures it would seem that the shortfall of 43 spaces may potentially be covered. There is a misconception that as a 'private nursery' we charge additional fees and differently from the other pre-schools. However, the only real distinction, in terms of what we offer, between us and a committee owned pre-school is that we are 'privately owned'. We offer the full 15 hours with full flexibility and we take 2 year olds. Our parents are all local and many are from the RAF base. In addition, we receive no financial support from the local Parish Council and have to pay market rates for the hire of our premises. We are the only pre-school in Odiham and North Warnborough who have been judged Outstanding in all areas by Ofsted. We have highly skilled staff and would appreciate the opportunity to be considered when planning for additional spaces alongside Leapfrogs. As an additional and minor note, we would appreciate it if you used our full name in the plan which is Puddleducks Montessori Nursery School. I will also be sending these comments via email. Owner, Puddleducks Montessori Nursery School
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission
115 RG29 1BZ Greywell Resident elsewhere E mail 28 Nov 2015 We support this plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
116 RG29 1AQ Odiham Resident of Parish Generally this plan includes the points made by majority opinions in previous consultations. Thank you for listening. Housing Development sites. You have offered what Hart suggests. More would jeopardise the historic character of the villages and threaten green spaces and local gaps. We do not need Deer Park development houses to fulfil our quota, especially in a green space. Local Gaps. Again these are needed to maintain character, environmental and SSSI needs and relaxation space. Suggest another is defined between the new Hatchwood development and Broad Oak. This is a traffic hazard area, will get worse when the new development is occupied, and any future threat to close this gap would add to traffic pressures. Housing mix. Affordable housing very important, to facilitate supply of staff for local shops and businesses, staff to satisfy carer needs of an ageing population, and Byways and a care home if built; and for young members of local families wishing to set up homes. Government and builders are good at changing these quotas later, they need to be emphasised now. We do not have enough at the moment. Green Spaces. Outside the settlement boundary is largely farm land and of 83
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
restricted access and use. Space within the villages is important for community use, as shown by Magna Carta this year. Have you designated enough?
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 117 RG29 1NB Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 27 Nov 2015 WITH ATTACHMENT Please find attached a copy of my letter for your attention and review. Yours sincerely ATTACHMENT I write in respect Policy 11: Local Green Spaces of pre-submission plan and in particular the proposal to designate the Kitchen Garden as LGS. The Kitchen Garden is identified as 11i on the proposed plan map and the supportive text, extracted from the plan, to identify its eligibility for LGS designation is summarised below: Kitchen Garden 3.52 It holds a particular local significance due to its history, tranquillity and, most importantly, its contribution to the character of an area that is regarded by residents as not simply the heart of the village but the physical embodiment of what makes Odiham special. Its position close to The Bury means it is regarded as both physically at the heart of the village and the place which, through its combination of listed buildings, tranquillity, charm, character, combination of greenery and built form, and simple everyday use by people going to and fro on foot to work, shops, schools and other places, is considered the real heart of the village. The absence of development on it means that, together with the churchyard, Chamberlain Gardens and Close Meadow, it helps form a green, visual corridor into the heart of the village from public footpaths and the Alton Road. The countryside which surrounds Odiham thus infiltrates into the very centre of the village. Fundamentally, the Kitchen Garden is not able to be enjoyed by members of the public as it is enclosed private land with no public rights of way or access across it and therefore it is questioned how people are able to enjoy its tranquillity or indeed recreational value! The land is substantially set back, enclosed and remote from the Bury to be regarded as integral to the setting of the Bury. The land has little flaura and fauna of value, where it is predominately grassland with a small number of low quality trees, and cannot be regarded as having a richness of wildlife, as any ecological survey would demonstrate. The land has also been separated from the Bury House for many years and the historical setting is dismissed by the previous residential development in The Close, to the immediate rear of the Bury House. The core historical setting has been changed and developed. In respect of the visual corridor, this can only be true from a vantage point on higher ground, such as looking from across from Alton Road or from up on the Church tower. The site is enclosed by tall mature planting and a tall boundary wall, which means views of the land from ground level are non-existent, apart from the access gate, which is access via a private road not a public footpath. The land has historically been developed on to build the Vicarage in the south east corner of the site. There is also an existing glasshouse on the land and historical maps identify the original glasshouse to have been notably larger and further structures were evident across the land. To say therefore ‘the absence of development’ is incorrect as there is a tangible precedent of development in the form of the Vicarage and glasshouse, and further historical evidence that that land is not simply an open green space. I would also note that the Kitchen Garden has been designated along with Close Meadow as area 11i on the Plan map. This should not be so as the two parcels of land are very different in form and setting, where Close Meadow is an open meadow and the Kitchen Garden an enclosed small parcel of land. They should not be regarded as one and the same as they are of significantly different characteristics. I fundamentally disagree with the proposed 84
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Local Green Space designation for the Kitchen Garden.
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 118 RG29 1PF Odiham Resident of Parish Letter 24 Nov 2015 I fully support the sites chosen to be developed for housing. I fully support the areas for local green spaces The site adjacent to Crownfields designated for a care home and housing seems to me to be the obvious place for such development (I say this in spite of the fact that I shall lose a significant part of the wide open view which I have enjoyed for 28 years!) I would never support the building of any house in the Deer Park. What seems to be lacking in the Onward Plan is an area for one or two bedroom bungalows, NOT FLATS, for sale to elderly people who wish to move closer to the High Street, vacating larger houses on the fringes of the village. A layout similar to that of the almshouses in Odiham would be ideal. Such people who have given up their cars need to be no further from the High Street than the present alms houses. Being able to open your own front door onto a “garden” even if no bigger than a small flower bed, enormously adds to one’s sense of well being. Flats are no substitute. A substitute for this layout of a group of bungalows could be the granting of planning permissions to people who wish to build a tiny bungalow in their large gardens. I do appreciate that bungalows use up more land than a block of small flats. Enormous thanks go the steering committee whose members have taken on this vast job.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
119 RG29 1DL North Warnborough Resident of Parish Letter 24 Nov 2015 Previously residing in Fleet and witnessing the various developments of Elvetham Heath, Crookham Gurkha camp, Farnborough Airfield, etc., my wife and I decided to move in retirement to a quiet village settlement. On enquiring as to why the open plot of land adjacent to Swan Mews had not been developed, I was informed that the various developers had been rebuffed due to the propensity of flooding and the nature of protected species of ground nesting birds. Thus reassured we purchased our house in Swan Mews nine years ago. Naturally we are now horrified and puzzled as to how this plot and its history of refusal has now been considered suitable for large scale development. Bell Cornwell’s claim that by digging the existing culverted watercourse deeper beggers belief that this alone will compensate for the loss of water absorbent land due to large quantities of foundation concrete, necessary road access, private patios etc. Any future large scale development should commence with a suitable road structure. Too often additional housing is crammed into inadequate spaces often surrounded by ancient narrow twisting lanes, many having no pavements or room for cycle lanes, bus stops, etc, Dangerous junctions and crossroads do not get the roundabouts or traffic lights required to control the increase in traffic flow. Consideration for the elderly is not always evident, motobility access, , wheelchair conveyance etc. Increase of demand put upon small town and village amenities, schools and health care become an added issue. In the light of proposed applications for the development of some seven or more different locations around and within the area of Odiham, North Warnborough, together with those for Hook and Winchfield, how can the 85
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
council expect existing residents to accept the prospect of becoming another Basinstoke?
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 120 RG29 1AE Odiham Resident of Parish I support the Neighbourhood Plan and its policies. I particular the policies about affordable homes, local lettings, site selection and the exclusion of Deptford Lane as a development site, we must keep that as a green gap bewteen North Warnborough and Greywell.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
121 RG29 1PL Odiham Resident of Parish The crownfields development is not an ideal site! The access from recreation road would be chaos! The bin men already have trouble getting up and down that road and children often run out through the hedge into the road with no path on one side! so to add more traffic would be ridiculous! Also with the road running alongside the school already a hazard road at certain times of the day very tricky to negotiate! And the access from the other very busy rd is potentially dangerous! It is very hard to pull out onto that road without putting your life in danger I'm not opposed to the houses but access to them posses considerable problems!
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 122 RG29 1BT greywell Resident elsewhere Site 108. Village identity must be preserved by means of physical separation.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
123 GU1 4TX Guildford Landowner or Please see Statement to be submitted seperately by email (Hard copy to follow). representative Also see e mail from Jane Terry 30th Nov 2015 received with Attachment.
Response: See report from Consultant
124 RG1 3BE Reading Landowner or E mail 27 Nov 2015 WITH ATTACHMENTS Dear Sir / Madam, Please find attached our representations and representative covering letter in relation to the above. We would be grateful if you could please confirm receipt of this email and attachments. 86
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: See report from Consultant
125 RG29 1JU Odiham Resident of Parish I AM AGAINST ANY HOUSING IN THE DEER PARK AND ANY FENCING IN OF ANIMALS. The applicant claims that there would be no further development because he will give covenants. I am very suspicious of any covenants. Someone has to enforce them. If the covenants are in favour of the Parish or District Council, and they are under pressure for more building land, a future council will be tempted not to enforce them. This is especially so if the thin end of the wedge has already been driven in by the building of houses the subject of this application and the historic character of the park altered. The precedent will have been set. The proposed row of houses is merely a money raising eyesore and should not be permitted And as for a prominent house in the middle of the park, it is impossible to envisage any greater intrusion into the heritage/green lung nature of the park. Moreover, I object to the penning of animals, in this case deer, into small caged paddocks. This is tantamount to a one breed zoo, and the last thing we want is a zoo!
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
126 PO14 4DL Litchfield Landowner or E mail 27 Nov 2015 WITH ATTACHMENTS Dear Sir/Madam Please find attached representations on the representative Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2032 Pre-Submission Plan.
Response: See report from Consultant
127 RG4 6DX Reading Sport or Leisure E mail 27 Nov 2015 WITH ATTACHMENT Please see attached comments from Odiham and Greywell Cricket Organisation Club. Regards
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
128 RG29 1LZ Odiham Resident of Parish The Plan is an excellent document and, subject to the comments below, I look forward to seeing it adopted as the blueprint for the future management of Odiham, North Warnborough and the spaces surrounding them: 1. Section 2 (p17) – An additional objective should be to opposed any further urbanisation of the countryside surrounding Odiham. This is particularly important in view of the progressive development of some agricultural properties (including farm buildings) in the area into what amount to small industrial estates e.g. Stapely Farm the traffic from which impacts detrimentally on King St. 2. Policy 2 – Land in Hook Road, North Warnborough – The 87
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
proposed development there seems excessive . If building is to take place, it should involve less density and, in view of the potential effect on the canal embankment, it should be made a condition of any planning consent that funding is made available by the developer to re-enforce the canal embankment. It is also very important that the key views from the relevant Conservation Areas are properly protected. 3. Policy 3 – Local Gaps – I support the proposals about local gaps. However, two further local gaps should be included. These are a gap between RAF Odiham and the village (which is a particularly prominent area in view of the high ground south of the village) and a gap between Broad Oak, which is a defined settlement (and recognised as such by Hart DC), and the village boundary which is currently being extended to the edge of the Hatchwood Farm development. 4. I fully support Policy 6. 5. Policy 8 – The Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area – The protections afforded to the canal as a key heritage asset and as an important green corridor within the Parish should be strengthened. In particular Policy 8 should include a prohibition against any building or engineering works within 20m of the canal and a condition attaching to the Conservation Area to the effect that no development would be permissible unless the land in question is removed from the designated area. 6. I fully support Policy 9. 7. Policy 11– I fully support the list of designated green spaces and, in particular, the Kitchen Garden, Close Meadow, land behind Beech Cottage and the Deer Park. In respect of the latter, there is a danger in making any exception to the principle that the whole of the Deer Park should remain Local Green Space. The current wording could be capable of being used by a developer to undertake works on the Deer Park which would have a detrimental effect on its landscape value. 8. Section 4.12 – With regard to public toilets, the current toilet facilities in King Street are inappropriately located. Some years ago, at the initiative of Cllr Crookes, new toilet facilities were proposed adjacent to the car park opposite the Health Centre. This would be a preferable solution rather than refurbishing the existing toilet facilities in King Street. 9. In the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report, there is no mention of the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area in the introduction although this third Conservation area is referred to in the text.
Response: Comments noted, SEA amended. No other direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result. 129 RG29 1AP Odiham Resident of Parish Housing development within the parish needs to be in a sympathetic style to the existing houses. One of my objections is the previous trend to demolish one house in order to put several on the same site. While these houses are large, the gardens are tiny. If the developer put starter homes on a site instead, there could be more affordable houses for local young people. We know more housing is needed, but it needs to be a mix of sizes. Older people want quality homes to downsize into and young couples need enough bedrooms so they do not need to move when they start a family. Getting on the housing ladder gets more difficult every year, so the cost of new homes needs to be considered. We need to keep open green spaces within the parish, to keep separate the identity of Odiham and North Warnborough. Local people want areas to walk or exercise their dogs. The plan for the Deer Park involved paths that would not allow dogs to run free. I am also against the proposed Deer Park development for historical reasons. Footpath changes should have the backing of the local community. We need farm or wild animals, not decorative deer which need managing. On the High Street more shops are needed, rather than offices like estate agents, when they come up for sale. The local restaurants encourage people to the 88
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
village and they wander up and down in the evenings. If shops are enticing the visitors would come back during the day time.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
130 RG29 1DE Greywell Resident elsewhere I support Plan and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I object to any housing development on site 108.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
131 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I am a resident in the adjacent village of Greywell. First, I must congratulate the Onward Plan Steering Group for producing an excellent piece of work - well done! I whole heartedly support the plan; in particular, the inclusion of a gap (Policy 3) between North Warnborough and Odiham (policy 3), in order to preserve the identity and charector of two historical and beautiful villages. It would be a tragedy if inappropriate housing development (Policy 2) was allowed on Site 108 when the Steering Group has comprehensively identified more practical and appropriate sites from the perspective of viability and geographic sensitivity.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
132 RG29 1AF Odiham Resident of Parish Crossings in the High Street: If changes are envisaged I would prefer to have one crossing opposite Lloyds Pharmacy (for the benefit of elderly residents visiting the pharmacy), and one opposite the new co-op and post office (both of which are popular venues and often used together).
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
133 RG29 1PP Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 1. Spatial Plan. Well thought out. Important to maintain gaps between Odiham and North Warnborough and between North Warnborough and Greywell Policy 4. Housing mix. Agree with need for affordable rented accommodation. Policy 11. Local green spaces. I hope any housing development in the Deer Park can be resisted. Policy 12. Natural environment. Pleased to see emphasis on care for this. Essential to maintain SSSIs and also wildlife corridors. Overall I feel this is a thoughtful local plan, providing for housing requirements while taking account of the needs and wishes of the community. 89
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
134 RG29 1LN Odiham Resident of Parish The Neighbourhood planning team have done a superb job in collecting and articulating the views and comments of residents into this plan which we wholly support. The areas of priority that we personally have and some comments are listed below. 1. To maintain and enhance the character of the village as an historic and vibrant place to live and work. 2. Improve the current situation with respect to traffic management and parking, particularly speed and congestion, i.e. we need some traffic calming measures and additional parking. With the proposals for so many new houses in the area it is important that this is addressed early and not as an afterthought. An objective to attract and support the High Street traders, restaurants and bars. Odiham is already a very popular destination for cyclists. This should be encouraged by improving facilities such as cycle paths and racks, particularly in the High Street where cycles are lent up against the wall. 3. To preserve the existing green spaces as proposed. They are so important to the quality of our lives and wildlife. 4. With respect to the Deer Park it is not enough to just leave it to chance. The current owners proposals to develop it provides a managed solution which provided it includes a covenant that no further development will take place is an acceptable solution. Unless it is managed the owner may well choose to sell thereby creating a vacuum and could lead to a large developer stepping in. 5. We don't support the need for an additional nursing home. The average age of the village is already too high. We should be encourage young families to settle here. 6. It is vital that the quality of housing in any development should be of a high standard sympathetic to the village character. 7. The heart of the village, the church and the Bury and the kitchen garden area should be enhanced as a place where community events can take place.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 135 RG9 1AE Odiham Resident of Parish Letter 24 Nov 2015 I have been a resident of Odiham for the past 46 years and wish to make the following comments on two aspects of the Plan: 1. The Deer Park (Conservation Area and Policy 11vii) The owner and his agents seem at every stage, to have ignored the almost unanimous view of the public who took part in the original “walk round” of the site, conducted by Mr Derek Spruce last Spring, that there should be no alteration to or development within the Deer Park. Neither should there be any diminution of its area. The Deer Park has existed for over 800 years and is a much valued area of public land. This land is not a manicured municipal park in a major city, and in my opinion, it is certainly not an area on which the building of housing and a “Parkers House” should under any circumstances be permitted. Additionally, it is not appropriate for the development of cycleways. I do not accept that car parking is now a “crucial” issue in Odiham as some additional car parking as been provided in the village and the High Street is certainly not “ailing:. Included in the current changes is a proposal to “covenant” the majority of the land in question, guaranteeing (if this is legally possible) that “no further development can take place”. This is something of a paradox because, if the prevention of further 90
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
development is so important, it begs the question “why should this development be permitted? I sincerely hope that these proposals are removed from the Pre-submission Plan. 2. Policy 11 – Local Green Spaces – Land adjacent to Archery Fields (para 3.53) I support the Plan’s intent, that this is not a site which should be developed for housing or any other construction. It is an important site on the eastern approach to Odiham, giving (uniquely) uninterrupted views over countryside to the south. It is thus a valuable feature of Odiham’s setting. This opinion might be considered to be somewhat parochial, but I do believe it is none the less valid. I trust that you will take the above views into your consideration.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
136 RG29 1LE Odiham Resident of Parish Letter 23 Nov 2015 First we would like to say a big “thank you” to the members of the Onward Team who have prepared this Plan with such skill and hard work. We all owe uou a debt of thanks. It is a pity that it has not been possible to include in your consideration four projects which will have a big impact on this village as they come to fruition: 1. The Hatchwood development going on now 2. The development of Robert May’s 3. The extension of Archery Fields 4. The new Nursing Home Frankly, the omission of these projects in the consideration rather negates the exercise. We also find it a pity that the proposal to develop the Kitchen Garden as a community space seems to have been dropped for no very good reason. We would like to see this project restored or some other community use made of that important space. Otherwise we agreed that your nine sites for development and your seven sites for Local Green Spaces are probably as much in sympathy with the present village as it is possible to be. We also agreed that there is now no more need for any more specified long-term parking space in the High Street. We believe you should be giving some consideration at this stage of the development of the village to by-passing the High Street (again) by a road form the A287 via Hillside to the Alton Road, near the RAF station. We believe that this will be essential for preserving the character of the Village long before 2032, and that the sooner the recognition of and planning for this comes the better. The major opportunity we all have to retain the character of this village through the next 17 years is to ensure that a sympathetic scheme is adopted for the Deer Park. We believe that is a sensible scheme comes forward for the section of the Deer Park to the north of the canal it could be combined with the existing plan to give the best chance of a harmonious whole. Our fear is that in striving for the maximum community advantage, we will irritate the present owner to the extent the land will be sold for a “Hatchwood style” development of several hundreds of individual houses.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
91
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
137 RG29 1LN Odiham Business owner I firstly want to say how interesting it was to read through this neighbourhood plan and I appreciate how much time and work must have gone into it, well done! I have a business in the High Street and have done for 26 years so I have seen many changes. I think that changes have to happen to keep a place alive and as long as they are sympathetic to the surroundings we have to be open to them. My main concern is the parking in the High Street and it being limited to 2 hours, I think 4 would be fairer and people would make more use of all the businesses along the Street.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 138 RG29 1BX Greywell Resident elsewhere E mail 26th Nov 2015 I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish”.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
139 RG29 1AN Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 25th Nov 2015 WITH ATTACHMENT Attached is our contribution to the pre-sub NP. ATTACHMENT: Deer Park LGS We commended OPC, backed by OnwardPlan, for proposing LGS status for the Deer Park (DP). We regard that as fully justified on the back of evidence of public opinion gathered by the NPSG as to the value of the DP as green space and recorded on p's 1-9 of the EVIDENCE FOR LOCAL GREEN SPACE DESIGNATION BY SITE/AREA; also as a vital Local Gap (which runs in parallel) separating the two villages. Although the two designations have different planning implications, they are clearly complementary to each other. We note the comment on page 52 that it "provides an open space for people to enjoy." It is quite possible to devise a scheme for improvement of the Deer Park which would extend the use of it without offending conservation principles and without sacrificing the area to a scheme of urbanisation designed for personal gain. Such a scheme could well appeal to the majority of the community. The Parish Council should put its mind to such an approach. Another reason for standing firm on LGS status is that it serves to protect the heritage assets of which Odiham is very proud and on which it depends for much of its business. Those assets are reflected in the Conservation Appraisal 2008 and the findings of English Heritage as to the Deer Park. We are very disturbed to learn that Bell Cornwell have been instructed to challenge such designation, the motive apparently being for nothing other than personal gain. To withdraw the designation for that reason would be outrageous. They have failed to disclose the grounds on which the challenge is to be made other than "whether it meets the NPPG expectations". That does not indicate which of the NPPF criteria will be tested, but we assume the third - that of size. OPC has very properly decided to leave that to the Examiner, with which we concur. Deer Park bespoke policy We were appalled at the decision by OPC to withdraw any land use policy for the DP. This was in spite of revisiting (against the rules) a previous resolution to endorse the NP going forward as it then stood (April 2015), expressly inviting public opinion 92
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
as to the issue. The decision when taken (i) flew in the face of public opinion, (ii) was justified by rejection as being too sweeping of a policy that had not even been put to OPC, and (iii) was contrary to the conclusions of the NPSG which had been charged with the task of making recommendations based on public opinion. It is abundantly plain that OPC's decision was reached without regard to its duty to reflect the opinion of those by whom it was elected, and was driven by personal agendas. A draft policy was suggested by locals as being appropriate. This was not apparently even considered, and certainly no reason was ever conveyed for disregarding it in spite of a request to that effect. We are aware that it is not incumbent on PCs to apply a policy to all sites but our planning adviser has commented that it might if tested be held to be perverse in this case, given the extent of controversy and expression of public opinion that has occurred. We invite OPC to introduce such a policy before submission of the NP.
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
140 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere I support this plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
141 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
142 RG29 1BZ Greywell Resident elsewhere E mail 25 Nov 2015 Good afternoon all, I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
93
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
143 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish. The adverse environmental impact around the site would profound. The impact on surrounding village infrastructure such as single track roads would be plain dangerous - Deptford Lane is already treated as a rat-run short cut. The fact there multiple blind entrances, a number of young children living in houses on the road makes any housing on site 108 mad to contemplate.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
144 RG29 1DG Greywell Resident elsewhere I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
145 RG29 1DD Greywell Resident elsewhere Dear Sir/ Madam, I'm strongly in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and the proposed creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. Any housing development on that site (number 108) would ruin the whole character of the Hampshire countryside by joining villages into a large urban sprawl. Your sincerely
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
146 RG29 1AH Odiham Resident of Parish The proposed sites are appropriately situated towards the west of our neighbourhood and provide a good spatial balance and spread of property across the community, particularly as current development at Hatchwood Farm is on the eastern side. This approach provides balance of new properties across the whole parish. With the chance of further development at the eastern side of the parish on land adjacent to Archery Fields, focussing development on the western side in the Neighbourhood Plan makses good sense further providing balance across the community. Opting for smaller developments is more in keeping with Odiham and North Warnborough. The proposed sites have good access to roads and utilise land that has little value as green space. As the focus is on smaller and affordable housing my concern is that as these criteria are likely to attract young families and more elderly residents, the impact on the local health economy of both should not be underestimated. I am also concerned re the capacity of local schools. However I do understand that these are issues wherever there is an 94
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
increase in housing and would expect the District and County Councils and Clinical Commissioning Groups to be addressing these factors in their future plans.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
147 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
148 RG29 1PP Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 2. I support the Housing Development sites put forward and the mix of housing types Policy 3 The issue of Local Gaps has been very well handled in detail. The vital gap between NW and Odiham in particular has been well developed with some housing and the green area. Policy 11 Local green spaces. I support these proposals and in particular the designation of the Deer Park as a green open space. This implies to me resistance to the building of 7 or 8 large houses. When looking at the outline of the housing developments I am concerned that in places there are an absence of pedestrian pavements linking to surrounding footways but I guess this is a detail that would be address at the planning application stage. Overall I welcome this plan. It is a very well thought out set of proposals arrived at after a very full consultation process. I congratulate the team.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
149 RG29 1DA Odiham Resident of Parish “I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish”.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
95
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
150 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented, and in particular the formal creation of a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on site number 108 in Deptford Lane. Greywell has a distinct and separate identity to the settlements of Odiham and North Warnborough, and the field at site 108 maintains this separation. Any development on this site would effectively amalgamate these separate villages, and damage their independent historic identities. There are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish. Furthermore, the roads leading to this site, both from Greywell and from North Warnborough, do not have the width or the capacity for further traffic movements. Site number 108 is entirely unsuitable for development and would be severely detrimental to the local area.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
151 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident I do not support the development of the green field Deptford Lane site which will effectively join Greywell to elsewhere North Warnborough. Specifically I object to the following: - the loss of the division space between the two villages - the use of agricultural green belt land for such housing - the increased traffic that will be a outcome of such a development, specifically through our village to the M3 motorway. - the overarching change to the village scene by a development of such a scale adjacent to a small village
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
152 RG29 1NZ Odiham Resident of Parish There has been a general avoidance of sites which would be adequately suitable, have developers interested and meet many of the objectives for your housing development plan but seemly have a protected status by the committee (notably 11i, 11 v and 11 vi). These sites have no more value as green space than other sites suggested for development and would help you comply with your objective of using infill space. Especially, given you have decided not to use brown sites such as the Swan Inn and the Jolly Miller. My particular objections to your current plan lie with the Crownfields site. The planned development for this is excessively large and does not comply with your objective of small to medium sites sitting at the equivalent of 75-90 dwellings. You seem happy to count the care home dwellings when it comes to trying to justify the quantitive divide of sites between North Wanborough and Odiham but seem to have conveniently overlooked it when it comes to selecting sites based on size preferences of the community. In addition you plan on further over burdening the site with a new nursery overshadowing the already existing nursery in this area. A 60 bed care home, a 60 place nursery and 30 houses, with all its associated traffic from deliveries, visitors, etc is going to have a huge impact on the already very busy and dangerous Alton Road, which will undoubtedly impact down into Odiham High Street and the junction for West Street which already sees a high flow of turning traffic particularly in relation to Robert Mays drop off and 96
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
collection times. On top of this you also propose a development in western lane, further pressure on the already overused infrastructure. Surely it would be wiser to put a high dependency care with easy access to the M3, so emergency services are not regularly blue lightning through the villages. Who in their right mind would want to place their relative in a care home directly under a chinook flight path? Low flights over the field at irregular intervals during the day and into the night along with noise from the airfield is not inducive to a calming environment. The development will impact on two sites of significant historic interest (The Firs and The Quarry) - another objective failed to be met. The beautiful far-reaching view of the firs which can been seen from many angles of the village and significantly further afield will be destroyed - another objective not met. You will be removing the last rural outlook for those who will live in the shadow of this site and remove easy access to green space, especially the children who enjoy playing in the border of the field and watching the farmer at work during the harvest. In general I am appalled that the steering group feel they can push forward with a plan for housing development which will effect the whole community when only 5% have agreed to it. Especially, when I talk to those who live around me, and some are unaware of what is happening, they never received a questionnaire through their door, they are house bound with no internet access, or are elderly and can't follow such a long and lengthy questionnaire. These are the people however who will lose there last rural view when a development goes up on their doorstep as close as 6m in some cases. This neighbour plan continues to further increase the social economic gap seen in these villages, with the affluent influential few protecting each other and failing to reach out to the wider community.
Response: Detailed points on Crownfields site considered, checked and no amendments made. Other points did not require any amendment to plan 153 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere Greywell is a village and should not be joined to Odiham by a new housing development.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
154 RG29 1DA Odiham Resident of Parish I support the Neighbourhood Plan, as presented, and, in particular, the formal creation of a gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (No. 108) when there are more economically viable, socially acceptable and, geographically practical sites on the Parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 155 RG29 1BZ Greywell Resident I believe that a local gap should exist between Greywell and North Wanborough in order to preserve the historic elsewhere character of the village(s).
97
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
156 RG29 1BU Greywell Resident elsewhere I support the neighbourhood plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
157 RG29 1NS Greywell Resident elsewhere Site i and ii - Longwood and 4 Western Lane I'm concerned that the vehicular access to these sites appears to be from West Street next to Robert Mays School. The traffic around the school at peak times has previously raised concerns from residents and parents of children attending all of the local schools. West Street becomes a difficult and often dangerous road to cross. Children walking through the Buftons Field estate and North Warnborough have to cross the road to reach Leapfrogs, Mayhill and Buryfields. Children travelling from Odiham village have to cross the road in the other direction to reach Robert Mays. Putting more traffic on this road doesn't seem a very sensible idea unless Robert Mays School is able to come up with a way of reducing traffic congestion caused by parents arriving at the beginning and end of the school day.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 158 RG29 1BS North Warnborough Resident elsewhere I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented and in particular the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I most strongly object to any housing. development on that site (number 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in that Parish
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
159 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere I support this policy as presented in the formal agreement of a gap to be maintained between North Warnborough and Greywell. I MOST STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY HOUSING on THAT SITE. ( NO. 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in the Parish
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
98
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
160 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish Looking at the overall plan and the proposed areas for development, green spaces and gaps. The plan will never be 100% perfect and overall everyone including myself will have reservations over certain locations and elements which typically affect them or their immediate surroundings. I strongly believe however that it is far more beneficial to the parish that we have a plan and also have it approved as quickly as possible. Not to have one will see a proliferation of poorly planned developments which ultimately damage what is a pretty amazing place to live and raise a family!
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
161 RG29 1BS North Warnborough Resident of Parish With reference to the site plan 108, we strongly support that a GAP between villages should be maintained, and vital that other more suitable sites are used for development .
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
162 RG29 1BH Greywell Resident elsewhere Looking at the location map and the overall sites for development, the North Warnborough Albion Yard sites is not shown? is this due to the relatively small site? This location if built on should provide dwellings of a similar height and total build area to that which is already present and provide multiple dwellings not a large single block of apartments/flats
Response: Albion Yard is included in plan: no amendment needed 163 RG29 1BH Greywell Resident elsewhere Looking at the proposed locations 2iv and 2vi these seem to fall inside the NW/BC conservation areas. I'm not opposed the development of these sites per se, however the overall impact in terms of design, aesthetic and environmental impact must be taken into account.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
99
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
164 RG29 1BS North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support the Neighbourhood Plan as presented, particularly the formal creation of a Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. As a resident of Deptford Lane in Greywell, any development on site 108 would impact enormously on our village and way of life. I most strongly object to any housing development there largely on the grounds of a massive potential increase in traffic along a single track access road. In addition other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites are available in Odiham Parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
165 RG29 1BP Odiham Resident of Parish Fervently against any inappropriate development
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
166 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere I support this policy as presented in the formal agreement of a gap to be maintained between North Warnborough and Greywell. I MOST STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY HOUSING on THAT SITE. ( NO. 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in the Parish
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
167 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere I support this policy as presented in the formal agreement of a gap to be maintained between North Warnborough and Greywell. I MOST STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY HOUSING on THAT SITE. ( NO. 108) when there are other more economically viable, socially acceptable and geographically practical sites in the Parish
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
100
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
168 CW1 6GJ Crewe Statutory Consultee E mail 25 Nov 2015 WITH ATTACHMENT Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above. Please find my comments provided below. Draft HRA Natural England notes that the revised document incorporates our previous advice in relation to the requirement to make contributions toward the monitoring arm of SAMM. We therefore advise that the overall approach now appears to be compliant with the requirements of the Habs Regs in order to be able to conclude no likely significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). Draft SEA and the Pre-submission Plan I have attached my previous response on the scope of the SEA as a number of elements have not yet been covered. These include an assessment of the plan’s impact on soils, climate change, ancient woodland, priority species and habitats, protected species, and green infrastructure, and ay enhancements that can be made in these areas. Furthermore, the Draft SEA cites only 2 local wildlife sites, whereas there are numerous others both within and adjacent to the Parish Boundary. These can he viewed here. In addition, our scoping letter response (attached) considered a wider suite of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) as considered sites also adjacent to the parish boundary along with the component SSSIs of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. The plan must consider all of the SSSIs in this list and demonstrate there will be no harm to these sites in order to be compliant with the various national policy and regulations governing the protection of these sites and plan making policy. I trust these comments are useful.
Response: Comments noted and revisions to the draft plan incorporated where appropriate to improve the Plan for Submission 169 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere As a resident of Greywell I would like to comment on the onward plan for Odiham and North Warnborough. I was brought up in Germany and moved to the UK almost 20 year ago. One of the reasons I always liked the UK so much was the unspoilt countryside and the well-preserved villages that still retain a village character. The area where I was brought up in Germany resembled this area in many aspects (originally rural, now within commuting distance to many economically important areas etc.) but has been completely spoilt as so many houses have been built that local gaps have been filled and many mile long stretches are now seemingly one settlement as opposed to separate villages. I therefore feel very strongly that it is most important not to make the same mistake in this beautiful area and to preserve its rural character. To this end I think it is vital that gaps between villages are not filled and that new housing does not exceed certain levels. So many people come to Greywell on a daily basis to walk along the canal and to enjoy the beauty of the landscape, so I think it would be a grave mistake to ruin all this by building houses between Greywell and North Warnborough and destroying the character of the village as its own entity.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
101
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
170 RG29 1EJ North Warnborough Resident of Parish E mail 24 Nov 2015 First I would like to thank everyone involved in compiling the NP and all those who ran the consultation sessions at various venues and then published the findings which I believe do represent the views of local residents. I can trace my family roots in this area back to the 1700s and I have lived in both Odiham and more latterly in North Warnborough and fully appreciate how important it is to maintain the unique identity of each. I was therefore pleased to see that both Hart DC and OPC are committed to keeping those important green gaps between the two. It was equally pleasing to see that the vast majority of contributors to the NP questionnaire also want our green spaces protected as do I. However I don’t understand why OPC seems to be backing a proposal to build in the Deer Park which is one of those defined green spaces. I live in a road that the proposed (enabling) houses will back on to which will mean that for me and all the other residents here that the gap/green space between North Warnborough and Odiham will be breached by the houses/service road built at this end of the development. It is my hope that OPC will think again, the Deer Park is fine as it is and the one thing it does not need is any building development on it. This would be a retrograde step that our descendants will neither understand nor forgive I suspect. It is our responsibility to protect this jewel in the crown of our two villages for future generations. As an immediate step towards preservation proper maintenance of the existing public footpath network serving the Deer Park should be undertaken by those responsible for it now. This should include repair or replacement of damaged or ineffective stiles, foot bridges and kissing gates. Equally those responsible for cuting grass on public footpaths adjacent to their land must also be encouraged to fulfil their responsibilities and again I speak with some knowledge of this having maintained a significant section of FP21 for 30 + years. All these maintenance measures would enhance the Deer Park experience for walkers and there is no good reason preventing land owners, HCC and OPC from getting on with the job now, all are mandated to do it. Please use your influence to encourage them all to action. Sacrificing a special and unique part of our green and pleasant land, namely the Deer Park on the commercial alter of development just for the sake of it is not and nor should it ever be an option.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 171 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish E mail 24 Nov 2015 I support the Neighbourhood Plan in principle but with reservations, that have remained consistent since the initial consultation meetings. Specifically as reported in: Site Assessment process was mathematically incorrect with inbuilt bias. ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2014- 2032 Pre-Submission Draft Plan – Site Assessment Page 1, para 2 A) The Site selection methodology was erroneous and invalid. Criteria should be ranked and hence weighted. The results will become ranked automatically. The SG decided to rank results and not the criteria. This is mathematically wrong and thus invalidates the entire site selection process. Clearly the SG had decided that criteria could be ranked as quoted below: ‘Only one criterion that was originally included in the list was deleted i.e. new development should be divided in a fair and proportionate way between the settlements of Odiham and North Warnborough. This was dropped because a clear majority of the community that responded to the exhibition (C1) survey in January thought this to be the least important.’ B) While commenting on any proposals, the residential location of respondents was noted i.e. Odiham /North Warnborough. There was the understanding that voting would be 102
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
proportionally assigned . However the result of this division is not taken into account at any point resulting in an inbuilt bias in favour of any decision that protected Odiham over North Warnborough. Other comments Additionally, members of the SG resident in Archery Fields did not recuse themselves from voting on sites that materially affected them, though it is noted that some other members of the SG DID NOT vote on sites that they had some interest in. Very limited relevance of the views of Robert Mays pupils – approx. 75% of those students reside outside of Odiham or North Warnborough. In particular, I do support completely the following policies. Policy 3: Local Gaps. 3.23, 3.24, 3.25. To maintain differentiation between i) the settlements of Odiham and North Warnborough and ii) North Warnborough and Greywell Policy 4: Housing Mix. Especially critical to the provision of appropriate housing is section 3.31 – application of these principles to developers’ proposals. Policy 11: LGS.
Response: Site selection report has been reviewed and amended to clarify how this was done in a fair and transparent manner.
172 RG29 1HG Odiham Resident of Parish The main point I wish to make is that the Plan needs to make provision for affordable housing for young people with a local connection. A thriving community needs to have a mix of ages and needs to ensure that people who have been brought up locally are not forced out of the village to find somewhere to live. I have always enjoyed the rural nature of Odiham and want to see that retained for future generations. All the local green spaces are important, in particular the Deer Park because of its size and proximity to the centre of the village. To lose it would be a great shame for future generations. It is important not to allow the villages to merge so that they retain their individual identities and therefore the gaps between Odiham, North Warnborough and Greywell should be maintained.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
173 RG29 1AH Odiham Statutory Consultee At the outset we would like to express our appreciation for the efforts of the Team in preparing such a well- researched and comprehensive document. Overall we are in agreement with the majority of the policies recommended in the Plan. However, we do have some points to raise which are as follows: 1. Section 2 (p17) – We suggest that an additional objective should be to opposed any further urbanisation of the countryside surrounding Odiham. We feel that this is particularly important in view of the progressive development of some agricultural properties (including farm buildings) in the area into what amount to small industrial estates. 2. Policy 2 – Land in Hook Road, North Warnborough – The Society has always opposed, and will continue to object to, excessive development of this site. If building is to take place, it should involve less density and, in view of the potential effect on the canal embankment, it should be made a condition of any planning consent that funding is 103
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
made available by the developer to re-enforce the canal embankment. In our view it is also very important that the key views from the relevant Conservation Areas are properly protected. 3. Policy 3 – Local Gaps – With regard to Local Gaps (and we support the current proposals) we consider the two further Local Gaps should be included. These are a gap between RAF Odiham and the village (which is a particularly prominent area in view of the high ground south of the village) and a gap between Broad Oak, which is a defined settlement (and recognised as such by Hart DC), and the village boundary which is currently being extended to the edge of the Hatchwood Farm development. 4. Policy 8 – The Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area – We would suggest that the protections afforded to the canal as a key heritage asset and as an important green corridor within the Parish should be strengthened. In particular we would prefer to see included within Policy 8 a prohibition against any building or engineering works within 20m of the canal and a condition attaching to the Conservation Area to the effect that no development would be permissible unless the land in question is removed from the designated area. 5. Policy 11– We believe that there is a danger in making any exception to the principle that the whole of the Deer Park should remain Local Green Space. The current wording could be capable of being used by a developer to undertake works on the Deer Park which would have a detrimental effect on its landscape value. 6. Section 4.12 – With regard to public toilets, we do not feel that the current toilet facilities in King Street are appropriately located. Some years ago, at the initiative of Cllr Crookes, new toilet facilities were proposed adjacent to the car park opposite the Health Centre. In our view this would be a preferable solution rather than refurbishing the existing toilet facilities in King Street. 7. In the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report, there is no mention of the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area in the introduction although this third Conservation area is referred to in the text. In summary we feel that the draft Plan is an excellent document and, subject to the comments we have made in this letter, we look forward to seeing it go forward for final adoption.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result. 174 RG29 1HJ Odiham Resident of Parish I'd like to understand why there is a proposal for a high dependency care home in the site near Crownfields. How does this benefit local residents? Surely a residential care home would be more beneficial. Also, interested to know why the map on the final page does not show the Hatchwood development that is already under way.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
175 RG29 1LN Odiham Resident of Parish I agree with all the suggestions made by the Neighbourhood Plan committee
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
104
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
176 RG29 1BP North Warnborough Resident of Parish I wholeheartedly support this plan.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
177 RG29 1PL Odiham Resident of Parish 1. The Firs is a heritage site seen from the M3 and as far as Minley. The sky line view of the ancient Fir Trees has been one of the Beacon Hills going back to 1588 at the time of the Armada it was one of the signalling stations between Plymouth and London. The Beacon or Odiham Firs is an eminence just over 400 feet above sea level. It commands panoramic views, southwards along the Hampshire Downs, Eastwards towards Surrey, and North and West over the well wooded country side to Berkshire. 2. The Chalk pit another heritage site from the French Revolution with the prisoners also the listed buildings around it, will be impacted by number 3. 3. The Alton road is so busy now, lets add say 400 people ( 30 houses with average 3 persons, totalling 90 a care home for 60 persons that is high dependency so say 180 people there) and the NURSERY where did that pop up from? Turning right on to the Alton road is dangerous! So serious road works needed to build lights or a roundabout, impact on the chalk pit!!! All that will happen is The Firs will become a rat run, Heritage site !!!!
Response: Comments noted – Crownfield site parameters reviewed to take account of issues raised 178 RG29 1BE North warnborough Resident of Parish Para 3.25 on p36 Gaps between the villages are vital to preserving character and preventing sprawl. In particular the Land between Odiham and n. Warnborough and especially n.warnborough and greywell are critical in preserving the rural feel of the areas. Losing these would have a big negative impact on people who dwell near these areas and also all of those who come to enjoy the walks and footpaths adjacent to them. Please ensure that these precious natural landscapes are not interfered with in an effort to preserve the natural beauty of our surroundings.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
179 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish I fully support this plan.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
105
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
180 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support this plan entirely. Local Gaps I firmly believe in the proposed new local gap to prevent the coalescence of the villages of North Warnborough and Greywell.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
181 RG29 Odiham Resident of Parish Need more pre-school spaces and would like to see better use of the local green spaces and not aimed just at teenagers
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
182 RG29 1BS Greywell Statutory Consultee Letter to OPC 18 Nov 2015 Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan – Pre-submission Plan, Statutory Body and Community Consultation according to Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012: 14 October 2015 to 30 November 2015 Thank you for affording Greywell Parish Council (GPC) the opportunity to comment on the Pre-Submission OnwardPlan. Before doing so, however, we would like to record our appreciation of the efforts of the Steering Group. Many of us in the village have been monitoring the progress of the Plan over the past year or so and we have been impressed by the thoroughness of the research, the strength of the analysis and the skill of the presentation; a truly profession job of which Odiham can be proud. As a community, Greywell has a natural interest in the way the villages of Odiham and North Warnborough develop. Our proximity means that most Greywell residents are regular and frequent “users’ of Odiham’s facilities and amenities for shopping, working, education, entertainment and recreation. Conversely, that very nearness raises its own challenge: preserving the separateness of the communities and the unique character of each. Our response, therefore, addresses both themes. On the former, GPC broadly concurs with the analysis, conclusions and resultant policies expressed in the Plan. It would be presumptuous of us to comment on the detail where it directly affects only the residents of Odiham and North Warnborough. Nevertheless, the vision and objectives of the Plan, supported by the proposals for: • housing sites, mix and design principles • the High Street and parking • Local Green Spaces • facilities and amenities, and • the natural environment seem to us to be well founded. Specifically, the thirteen policies contained in the Plan provide a strong basis for managing the future development of Odiham parish while preserving those features and characteristics which all of us value. Our primary concern over rthe past year, as Odiham Parish Council is well aware, has been to maintain the integrity of the settlement boundaries as they affect North Warnborough and Greywell, thereby preserving the unique nature of each village and prevent creeping coalescence. This in the context of the possible development of the field north of Deptford Lane (SHLA site 108) proposed by Hallam Land Management Ltd. This would be catastrophic for both communities. We are, therefore, gratified to see enshrined in Policy 3 of the Pan a proposal to designate a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. Our local villages have wonderful 106
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
individual characters that would be ruined if the open countryside between them was to disappear, not to mention the detrimental effect development would have on the beauty of the area, as exemplified by King John’s Castle the River Whiteweater, the Basingstoke Canal plus the adjoining SSSI sites and conservation areas. GPC strongly endorses this Policy and separately is lobbying Hart to include a slightly expanded Local Gap (crossing our respective parish boundaries and extending to the Canal and Whitewater) in its emerging Local Plan. At the time of writing, however, the District Council appears intent on including Site 108 in the housing options site options consultation that is about to commence – apparently disregarding local opinions expressed in the OnwardPlan. In summary, GPC wholeheartedly supports not only the proposed creation of this Local Gap, but also the generality of the proposals set out in the Pre-submission OnwardPlan. If approved and adopted, the Plan will be a major influence in shaping the future of this part of NE Hampshire that we all live in and prize so much. Yours sincerely.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 183 RG29 1BP North Warnborough Resident of Parish Odiham and North Warnborough are definitely becoming less divided and more obviously joined and this is positive, however joining to a 3rd village (ie Greywell) does not make sense. There should be clear divisions with the gap. The Deptford Lane Development would mean the 3 villages would amalgamate into 1 and with this, there is a loss of identity and the village status disappears. I also do not think there is the infrastructure to service this development. The space for development needs to be where access and infrastructure is in place.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
184 RG29 1BP North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support this plan and am fervently against any inappropriate development in our parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
185 RG29 1PF Odiham Resident of Parish I support this Plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
186 RG29 1BE North Warnborough Resident of Parish I fully support the plan.
107
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
187 RG29 1HQ North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support this plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
188 RG29 1BH North Resident of Parish I support this plan. Warnborourgh
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
189 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support the Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
190 RG29 1BG North Warnborough Resident of Parish I fully support the proposed plan. Particarly the rejection of any large developments that would spoil the character of N Warnborough and create unsustainable traffic and safety issues through the village. I also support the creation of a local gap between N Warnborough and Greywell, keeping the attractiveness of the 2 villages.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
191 RG29 1BG North Warnborough Resident of Parish Overall Plan - I am fully supportive of the proposed plan. I huge amount of rigour applied to a challenging, sensitive and emotive challenge. Local Gaps - Critical to the plan is the adoption of local gaps, both between Odiham and N Warnborough, and NW and Greywell, thus maintaining the rural feel of each village, and providing the ability for all to enjoy the footpaths, areas of historic importance and natural beauty. Site Selection Matrix - I would propose that this is included as an appendix to the plan (if not already). If certain proposals in the plan do not materialise, or a requirement comes in to provide further housing stock, it is important that this well thought through, logical ranking be used as a primary reference.
108
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
192 RG 29 1LE Odiham Resident of Parish My priority is the PROTECTION OF THE CONSERVATION AREA .... In particular the several TREES that form the HIGH POINT of ODIHAM and its APPEARANCE as a COUNTRY TOWN. I therefore ask that the LOCAL GREEN SPACES be granted - as recommended by the industrious Neighbourhood Plan Group which has done such AN EXCELLENT JOB on behalf of the residents. Because of the TREES and proximity to the CHURCH and the SCHOOLS I attach special importance to the LOCAL GREEN SPACE designated as BC (Land behind Beech Cottage). I feel that this is the CENTRAL LAND of Medieval Odiham, the earth is proven to be "made land" and the site of a former Anglo-Saxon settlement and the TREES represent the ecological heart of the Conservation Area. Its protection is of the highest importance.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
193 RG29 1ER North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support this plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
194 RG29 1NX Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 23rd Nov 2015 Comments with reference to the Onward Plan, Longwood / 5 Western Lane, proposed development site • The cumulative impact of the development, when considered alongside other developments, will have an adverse impact on the area. • The proposal constitutes a sporadic development and would prevent proper more comprehensive development of the area of more suitable sites. • There is a history of rejecting similar developments in this area. • Approval would create a precedent, meaning that it would be difficult to object to similar future proposals. • proposed development will impact the natural environment and will present a threat to important wild life, including the activity of bats from the local sanctuary. • There are alternative sites available in the area with more adequate and appropriate infrastructure.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result Cop
109
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
195 RG29 1EU North Warnborough Resident of Parish Policy 2 Housing development sites. iv Land behind Albion Yard - 12 houses + possibility of re-development of The Swan + parking for visitors to King John's Castle is overdevelopment. vi Land at Hook Road - Whilst we would prefer no development at all, the NP scheme as a compromise seems reasonable particularly separating the two sites to avoid a road in the canal SSSI 10M buffer zone and to avoid jeopardizing the stability of the canal bank. It must be stated that, as of the 13th October 2015, planning permission has been refused for this site by Hart Council. Policy 11 Local Green Spaces. Why are there no LGS in Broad Oak, Mill Corner, Derby Fields or North Warnborough? 3.53 - Land to the East of Archery Fields should be withdrawn as it clearly does not meet any of the criteria for LGS but does meet the criteria for Housing sites - Hart have clearly stated site is suitable for development by granting outline planning permission. 3.55 I agree that the Deer Park should be designated LGS. Traffic Management 4.6 Why are proposals only for the High Street in Odiham - why not investigate 20mph in other areas including Hook Road in North Warnborough?
Response: Comments on Housing Sites and LGS noted; Archery Fields withdrawn from plan as LGS. Traffic Management explanation reviewed 196 RG29 1JL Odiham Resident of Parish We all accept that there is a housing quota burden to be suffered and have replied accordingly agreeing to the areas that have been highlighted in previous questionnaires. Parking clearly becomes more of an issue than at present, but I think it is a blight to have so many parking spaces allocated to the disabled. We all use the high street, that being a principal function of the community In the 2011 census the population of Odiham was 4,610 and is made up of approximately 51% females and 49% males. The average age of people in Odiham is 44, while the median age is higher at 46. We do not want to be labelled as a village for the elderly and infirm and given these demographics the disabled are over represented. It is a nonsense to delegate space outside the post office to disabled parking when we are all trying to support and use it
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
197 RG29 1LF Odiham Resident of Parish I agree with the plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
198 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish My concerns and reservations for some of the developments proposed in North Warnborough are their proximity to the canal and open spaces surrounding. Any housing development in these areas would be detrimental to the conservation area generally and be a blight on what is a beautiful and peaceful part of our village.
110
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
199 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I have recently been fortunate to move to the small historic village of Greywell. Our village is steeped in history and helps form the character of a beautiful corner of Hampshire. The area is privileged to provide access to many historical rights of way, paths, country lanes, the River Whitewater and the Basingstoke canal. This is a time when people need to be encouraged to find time to exercise and lots of people are drawn to visit our village for leisure, lured by its beauty to walk, cycle, fish, canoe and photograph. The view from Greywell Hill over Greywell and onto North Warnborough is stunning. The paths around Greywell allow great access to many unexpected nooks and crannies. The historically important King John's castle currently sits in a secluded spot. It's surprising whilst walking how well this listed landmark is seen from many different viewpoints. Fantastic efforts are made to restore and maintain the Basingstoke Canal. Currently trees are being cleared to maintain the ecosystem around the canal. Views have been opened that we can all enjoy. If the gap between Greywell and North Warnborough is closed, lots of people will be deprived from fully enjoying this outstanding green area in the future. Walkers will see less beautiful countryside and cyclists will keep their heads down, affected by the increase in traffic flow. How sad that will be. For the benefit of future generations closing the gap between Greywell and North Warnborough must be avoided at all costs.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 200 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish In my opinion, the plan successfully delivers on housing needs while protecting the identity of Odiham and North Warnborough. Central to this is the provision of the local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell (policy 3). It is imperative that this beautiful area is protected, not only because it would preserve the identities of the communities but also because this is a site of special scientific interest. We have a duty to protect the character of our villages and the local gaps are an essential part of this.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 201 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish I think that the plan has been well thought out, providing housing capacity whilst being sensitive to maintaining the identity of Odiham and North Warnborough. I believe that the inclusion of the local gaps (especially the local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell) is vital to the plan and preserves the integrity of the communities. The gap between North Warnborough and Greywell is an area of outstanding beauty and, as a site of special scientific interest, I feel it is imperative that this is preserved to retain the character of North Warnborough and the conservation area.
111
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
202 RG29 1AE Odiham Resident of Parish The revised planning application for the 'green space' adjacent to Archery Fields has not addressed the views of the Parish Council and should not go ahead. 1. Loss of visual amenity 2. Loss of red-listed birds 3. Overdevelopment 4. Inadequate access for refuse lorries. 5. Outside village boundary 6. Concerns about access road safety onto Farnham Road 7. Drainage not addressed re flooding of copse and adjacent properties 8. Light pollution
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
203 RG29 1AT Odiham Resident of Parish I support the Neighbourhood Plan in its current form and would like it to go forward
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
204 RG29 1NP Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 1 - I support this Policy 2 - I support this Policy 3 - I support this Policy 5 - I support this Policy 6 - I support this Policy 7 - I support this Policy 8 - I support this Policy 9 - I support this Policy 11 - I support this Policy 12 - I support this Policy 13 - I support this
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
205 RG29 1NP Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 1 - I support this Policy 2 - I support this Policy 3 - I support this Policy 5 - I support this Policy 6 - I support this Policy 7 - I support this Policy 8 - I support this Policy 9 - I support this Policy 10 - I support this Policy 11 - I support this Policy 12 - I support this Policy 13 - I support this
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
206 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish Keep gaps between Odiham and North Warnborough and the gap from Greywell. Dont encourage cyclists in the Deer Park.
112
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
207 RG29 1JZ Odiham Resident of Parish I think this is a well thought out, balanced document in which the whole area has been carefully scrutinised. I believe that all the policies show the best possible future for our area, as available within the larger picture.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 208 RG29 1LF Odiham Resident of Parish I support the plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
209 RG29 1AN Odiham Resident of Parish I support the plan
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
210 RG29 1AQ Odiham Resident of Parish Very keen to see the Deer Park as a protected green space.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 211 RG29 1AN Odiham Resident of Parish Odiham already has an issue with traffic and issues that arise around increased safety for its inhabitants as a direct result of increased traffic &speed through the high street. More homes =more cars (as there is not and adequate bus provision now!) More homes build on green fields reduce the greens fields/ and therefore the strategic gap as a consequence of this diminishes (and will eventually disappear ) this will result in Odiham no longer remaining as a village but a larger Urban area. Not remain as a historic Village. The infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the increased demands - Recently built homes have proved that the drainage system is unable to cope (e.g.on Colt Hill /London Road where Montfort place drains are now directed - as yet uninhabited but causing issues recently!) The addition of homes will put pressure on the village schools already struggling to cope. Increased traffic to/from the Motorway and rail stations with road structures that were designed for light through traffic - Each 100 homes is a guaranteed another 100 cars potentially twice this number (2 cars per home being the norm in this region. more in a lot of cases!) Road quality and highway maintenance already an issues. Pollution will of course increase directly due to this too. In fill of current green 113
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
space directly causes reduction in wildlife of all kinds - Red squirrels have recently been seen around our village - this may be a very short reappearance if construction continues to destroy their habitat.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
212 RG29 1NN Odiham Resident of Parish We own the cellar underneath the public toilets in King Street with a flying freehold - and the windows of the toilets back onto our garden. The deeds of our house include the need for the council to give 5 days written notice to access the rear of the toilets or the roof from our garden side, in order to carry out repairs or maintenance. We note and understand the public desire to have public toilets and potentially use CIL money to upgrade or refurbish them. The building they are currently housed in is a Grade II listed building, on a busy road, opening straight onto double yellow lines and as such is not an ideal location. In fact, we regularly observe van drivers illegally parking on the double yellow lines while they use the conveniences - thus impeding access to our garage and causing traffic build up at busy times. The current toilets also necessitate the use of the old and ugly water tower cistern on the roof which spoils the King street skyline. We would like the plan to consider an alternative approach to refurbishing the existing toilets, in favour of creating a modern, purpose built toilet facility in a more suitable location, for example in the small car park opposite the Bridewell. The sale of the existing toilet building in king street would more than offset the costs of a new toilet building. In the event that the council looked at a sale option, we would be interesting in purchasing the building as we already share boundary walls on two sides as well the cellar below. It is possible that others would also be interested in its purchase eg for expansion of the King Street dentist. A final comment is to say thank you to the volunteers who have so much effort into preparing this neighbourhood plan. It is very much appreciated and we are lucky to have such dedicated neighbours. Thank you!
Response: Comments noted and passed on to OPC
213 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish Local gaps- I strongly agree with these two local gaps. The villages need to maintain their own identity and avoid losing this by the gap getting less and less. Odiham High Street and Parking- NO MORE PARKING IS NEEDED ON OR NEAR ODIHAM HIGH STREET. A recent decision at a parish council meeting that now seems to advocate that the High Street needs parking has not been measured in any way. The idea of sacrificing other areas for parking without surveying properly is absurd. Whilst revitalising the High Street is important this should not be at the expense of residents wishes over land use and set precedents that will lead to development that damage the historic nature of this village and its setting in open countryside with far reaching views. Any planning applications that involve parking as a pay off for development should be firmly rejected. It is good to see no more parking is advocated for the High Street....it is not needed. Local Green Spaces- The Deer Park is the most important local 114
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
green space and in the original survey by Onward Plan was the single most commented on area. The comments from the people of the village were extensive and I would agree with the vast majority that saw its historic nature as of vital importance, the fact that it is open for all to use, the public footpaths that are regularly used by all ages and its open views into and out of the village. THIS AREA MUST BE PROTECTED. Deer Park Policy-I am dismayed about the lack of policy on the deer park and the fact that some members of Odiham Parish Council have done everything they can to ignore the wishes of this village. At consultation, Onward Plan told us that the peoples wishes would be listened to. We sadly have a parish council that have fought the peoples wishes every step of the way. Onward Plan have maintained integrity throughout, OPC have not.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
214 RG29 1PE Odiham Resident of Parish Green spaces between Odiham and N Wanborough shoud be retained. Developments should include a mix of affordable housing specifically reserved for persons who have a genuine connection to the Parish. Large developments should be discouraged and densities kept low.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
215 RG29 1DW North Warnborough Resident of Parish I am supportive of the plan and am very grateful for all the work put in by the volunteers to create this for our parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 216 RG29 1HJ Odiham Resident of Parish I am very supportive of the proposed policy
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
217 RG29 1AL Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 20th Nov 2015 I wish that the area of land known locally as “the Deer Park” remains as “Local Green Space” and should not be built upon. I hope however, that all the pathways through hedge-lines be made all weather useable by walkers. Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
115
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
218 RG1 8BW Reading Statutory Consultee E mail 20th Nov 2015 With attachments Dear Sir/Madam, Please find our response to the above attached on behalf of Thames Water. Regards,
Response: Comments noted and appropriate changes made to the draft Plan as a result 219 RG29 1AE Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 1 Spatial Plan. I support this policy Policy 2 Housing development sites. I support this policy. Policy 3 Local Gaps. I support the policy in principle but note potential need expand Robert May's school, see comment on Policy 10 below. I strongly support the North Warnborough to Greywell Local Gap. Policy 4 Housing mix. I support this policy and in particular strongly support the need for local lettings policies for affordable housing to secure a proportion for local use. Policy 5 General Design principles. I support this policy Policy 6 Odiham Conservation Area. I support this policy. Policy 7 North Warnborough Conservation Area. I support this policy. Policy 8 Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area. I support. Policy 9 Odiham High Street. I support. Policy 10 Education. By including land to the rear (north west) of Robert May's school, currently used as playing fields, land to the north east and Hockleys Farm may inhibit future growth of Robert May's buildings if these are required to be expanded to meet the need for future school places. Policy 11 Local Green Space. See comment above about Hockleys Farm. Policy 12 The Natural Environment. I would prefer the opening sentence to read "Development proposals will be resisted if they do not.... Although I understand this negative version may not be compliant with NPPF. Policy 13. Assets of Community Value. I support.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
220 RG29 1LJ Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 20th Nov 2015 Dear Sir, I am amazed that so little is being said about the Deer Park, its valuable green space as indicated in all the pre plan work that you undertook and the community values it along with the canal as a key recreation area. Additionally my belief is that the feedback has been that we need 2/3 bed homes and yet the plan for the Deer Park is to build 1 mansion and 8 other multi million pound homes How can you ignore what the community is saying here? ‘OPC seems to be in the pocket of the developer’ – be very aware that is what is being said around the village Shameful and the NP team is standing by doing nothing. Please ensure my comments are submitted Thank you in advance Regards
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
116
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
221 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 18th Nov 2015 I would like to congratulate the team in the research, analysis and preparation of this exhaustive document. In summary I agree with every aspect of it but wish to reinforce the recommendations regarding the agricultural area to the north of Odiham and the east of North Warnborough known as the Deer Park. The NP achieves the difficult task of creating a balance between areas to be developed and areas to be protected from development which are required to provide walking, play areas and vistas within easy walking distance of the settlements. There are few opportunities in and around Odiham and North Warnborough to achieve this balance and the NP identifies correctly that with its easy accessibility the Deer Park which is used extensively by residents of Odiham and N Warnborough should be designated as a Local Green Space to be added to its current designation as a Gap and Conservation area. The current owner of the Deer Park has demonstrated that now, and in the future, it is at high risk of development by presenting a vision for this area which includes building within the DP a number of houses, removing and diverting extensive lengths of footpath, erecting fences and planting trees all of which would deny the residents the amenities, mentioned above, that they currently enjoy. The Deer Park with its association with King John’s castle has significant heritage value as its boundaries have been protected and preserved over the centuries. The NP should use whatever instruments are available to resist development in order to retain the amenity and heritage values that have been provided over many centuries by the Deer Park.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
222 RG29 1AS Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 1: I agree with the proposed plan. Policy 2. The balance of proposed new housing looks about right. It will safeguard land and the appearance of the parish. Policy 11. It is important to retain as much green space as possible, particularly safeguarding the deer park. I am pleased that the number of houses proposed has been reduced. I am concerned that this space should be protected as much as possible. Policy 3: It is important to retain gaps between Odiham and North Warnborough. They are two separate villages and should be able to keep their identities. Policy 11: The land adjacent to Archery fields should be retained as a green space for views and walking. I agree with the retention of all the green spaces indicated on the map. Policy 2: Any building should be in keeping with the local environment and appropriate for the contours of the land. I would like to see fewer houses and some one storey dwellings. Policy 6,7,8: I am pleased to see this given a high priority. These conservation areas need protection as they are important for the whole of the area.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
223 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 18th Nov 2015 I would like to congratulate the team in the research, analysis and preparation of this exhaustive document. In summary I agree with every aspect of it but wish to reinforce the recommendations 117
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
regarding the agricultural area to the north of Odiham and the east of North Warnborough known as the Deer Park. The NP achieves the difficult task of creating a balance between areas to be developed and areas to be protected from development which are required to provide walking, play areas and vistas within easy walking distance of the settlements. There are few opportunities in and around Odiham and North Warnborough to achieve this balance and the NP identifies correctly that with its easy accessibility the Deer Park which is used extensively by residents of Odiham and N Warnborough should be designated as a Local Green Space to be added to its current designation as a Gap and Conservation area. The current owner of the Deer Park has demonstrated that now, and in the future, it is at high risk of development by presenting a vision for this area which includes building within the DP a number of houses, removing and diverting extensive lengths of footpath, erecting fences and planting trees all of which would deny the residents the amenities, mentioned above, that they currently enjoy. The Deer Park with its association with King John’s castle has significant heritage value as its boundaries have been protected and preserved over the centuries. The NP should use whatever instruments are available to resist development in order to retain the amenity and heritage values that have been provided over many centuries by the Deer Park.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
224 RG29 1QE Odiham Consultee Email 13th Nov 2015 Dear sir/Madam, Having read your initial plans I would like to clarify on behalf of Children’s Links as the provider of Little Wings nursery that it is based on an RAF site however it is not primarily for use by RAF personnel, we are continuously working to break this perception so as to encourage attendance form the wider community including those from non RAF families. We are currently undertaking a review of the use of space within our setting and we are actively exploring ideas for extending the number of places that we can offer to all age groups of children between 0-5 years. We would be interested to be kept up dated with any future plans to offer more child care provision within the area and opportunities to work with other providers to ensure that there are adequate number of affordable and accessible child care places.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
118
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
225 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Dear Sirs, As a longstanding resident of Greywell, (more than fifty years) I am obviously worried about future development proposals in this part of Hampshire. I am very much in favour of a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell as suggested in the Neighbourhood Pre-Submission Plan published by Odiham Parish Council. I FULLY SUPPORT POLICY 3. and I can envisage, by the turn of the Century, a ribbon development stretching from Odiham to Mapledurwell and beyond if we are not very careful. It is essential that coalescence of settlements should never be allowed and should be avoided at all costs. I LOVE this beautiful village of Greywell. It needs to be cared for and protected. It is small and historic and is of SSSI and its character must be preserved. I pray that all will be done that is possible to save our precious village from destruction. Yours sincerely,
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
226 RG29 1BE North Warnborough Resident of Parish 1. I am in favour of the proposals for development in Odiham and North Warnborough put forward by the Onward Plan. 2. I am strongly in favour of the proposed new Local Gap to maintain the space between Greywell and North Warnborough ie Deptford Lane field, and would support it becoming a Local Green Space. 3. I am strongly in favour of the Deer Park being a Local Gap/Local Green Space, and do not support the present proposals for development. 4. I have no objection to paying for parking in Odiham and therefore very seldom have a problem with parking there. 5. Congratulations to all the members of the Onward Plan team for all their hard work and commitment on behalf of the residents of Odiham and North Warnborough.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
227 RG29 1BE North Warnborough Resident of Parish 1. I am wholly in favour of the contained and sustainable development proposals set out in the Onward Plan. I believe that together with the existing developments that have been approved or are being built, Odiham will have done its fair share within Hart. I would like to thank and congratulate the Onward Plan team for their considerable efforts on our behalf. 2. I am wholly in favour of the proposed new Local Gap to prevent the coalescence of North Warnborough and Greywell. 3. I am wholly in favour of part of the existing Local Gap between North Warnborough and Odiham being enhanced into a Local Green Space, to prevent any further coalescence of North Warnborough and Odiham in the area known as the Deer Park. 4. I am wholly against any new development in the Deer Park, particularly along the lines promoted by various members of the OPC in the recent Parish Council Newsletter Issue 17. 5. I would recommend, before any Local Gap or Local Green Space can be changed, that all the residents of the parish be consulted in full by way of a referendum and that, only then and with a majority in favour, can the OPC assume it has a mandate to support any new development in such areas. 6. I do not believe any new parking is needed in the area around the High Street. I can almost invariably 119
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
park directly on the High Street when I want to and, if not, can easily park nearby even if it costs some loose change. However, I would recommend that other areas of free and paid parking near the High Street should be made more obvious to residents and to passing traffic. 7. I disagree completely with the argument made by certain members of the OPC that additional parking resulting from the development of Deer Park would be worth the sacrifice of the existing Local Gap and the proposed Local Green Space. In my view, it would be a waste to have additional parking at the far end of the already unpopular and underused pay car park by the doctors’ surgery and it would not justify sacrificing even part of the Deer Park. 8. I would congratulate all concerned, not limited to those on the OPC who would claim all the credit, but also including all local business people working on or near the High Street (not just the retailers), all local residents living on or near the High Street and all people using the retail facilities, restaurants, service businesses and other businesses on or near the High Street for ensuring we have one of the best maintained, most attractive, most active and least ailing High Streets in Hampshire. It is self-evident that the retailers on the High Street are under continuous threat from out-of-town shopping areas, in our case Newlyns and Tesco, but this is just economic natural selection in progress. 9. I see no need for any additional pre-school education facilities within the parish.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
228 RG29 1AT Odiham Resident of Parish I have studied this Pre-Submission Plan in some detail and have been most impressed with every aspect of it; the clarity of layout, the balanced, logical and comprehensive study of each aspect and the sensible deductions and conclusions that result. My particular interest is the Deer Park and two point stood out. First, the decision to propose the Deer Park for inclusion as a Local Green Space was admirably presented by first considering the criteria required by the National Policy Framework, then considering the Deer Park against these criteria, and then summarising the whole breadth of the arguments in Annex A. My second point is the lengths to which the team have gone to discover the Community views, particularly in contentious areas and through a wide age group including those still at school - who are likely to be rather more affected by this Pre-Submission Plan up until 2032 than us oldies will be. Good thinking! In sum, I am sure the whole Community will feel, like me, that this is a quite outstanding Plan to guide the development of our area in the years ahead and we owe the team who produced it our tremendous gratitude for the immense amount of work they have put in to producing such a valuable and important plan for the future. One can only hope that it receives the attention it deserves from those, such as Odiham Parish Council, who are and will be responsible for deciding on the way ahead.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 229 RG29 1NZ Odiham Resident of Parish Ref: Neighbourhood Plan – objection to site 2.vii (previously designated 327) I am writing to express my concerns and objection to the proposed development of land next to Crownfields as currently included in the Neighbourhood Plan. The reasons for this objection are outlined as follows: 1. The neighbourhood plan clearly 120
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
states an intention to retain green spaces, yet the proposed site 2.vii is in clear contravention of this; building on a literal green field at the south of Crownfields, Recreation Road, Salmons Road, Buffins Road and Robert Mays Road. This green field area provides a beautiful and natural boundary to the village and the many inhabitants of these roads. 2. There are other areas in the vicinity that have been designated as 'SHLAA sites not proposed for housing' that are also green fields (e.g. previously designated 59, 108 and 138). Why exclude these? Building on these areas would either not impact residents with bordering properties (there being none) or would impact fewer residents with bordering properties. 3. All sites proposed for housing in the NP are to the west of the village, with all but one to the west of the line marked by Hook Road, Dunley's Hill and Alton Road (and that site borders Hook Road so is effectively on the line). This is a disproportionate spread of proposed housing sites across the village. Similarly, of the 16 areas specifically not proposed for housing, only four are to the west of this line; the other 12 are to the east. Again, disproportionately favourable towards non-housing spaces to the east of the village. 4. The proposal for site 2.vii suggests the option of a high-dependency nursing home. Why build a large business property such as this on a green field site when there are other brownfield options, e.g. The Chilli Pad or The Swan public house? Both of the alternate options are eyesores currently and contradict many of the Neighbourhood Plan's intentions; e.g. brownfield/conversion site; setting/rural views; preserving valued green space; ease of vehicular access. 5. Building on site 2.vii would turn the cul-de-sacs of Recreation Road and Buffins Road into 'rat-runs', primarily to access Robert Mays School. We strongly oppose any development of site 2.vii for the reasons stated above. Further to point 4 however, with regard to the options for the proposed development, neither a mix of dwellings and a high-dependency nursing home or a dwellings-only option would be satisfactory. 60 dwellings would double the proposed number of residential properties whilst a high- dependency nursing home would have frequent emergency vehicle access and a significant increase in trade access associated with a business of this type. New property developments, especially of the 1, 2 or 3 bedroom type typically have insufficient parking spaces. Like it or not, one-bedroom properties are not the preserve of 'singletons' and require at least two parking spaces each. Two-bedroom properties should be able to accommodate three cars. The consequence of not making this allowance is that local roads become overrun with cars parked on the roadside or on pavements. Finally, whilst we oppose any development of site 2.vii, a possible option for site 2.vii would be for it to be predominantly north/south or squarer in shape as opposed to the current east/west orientation. Occupying greater frontage along Alton Road, it would retain the same area of the proposed development, avoid the site being isolated, and minimise the impact of removing green field space adjacent to current residential areas. The stipulation remains however for no access from the site to Recreation Road, Salmons Road or Buffins Road, for the reasons outlined in point 5 above.
Response: Comments noted and considered: site parameters reviewed. No access proposed to Recreation, Salmons or Buffins roads.
121
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
230 RG29 1LE Odiham Resident of Parish I would like to congratulate the NPSG on their comprehensive consultations and the detailed pre-submission plan that they have submitted. I completely concur with their conclusions and support the plan and their recommendations. I would like to underline my agreement with the Housing Development Sites and all their recommendations and guidelines protecting the scale, type, architecture and materials used. I would also like to underline my agreement with the protection of the Odiham Conservation Area. This is of paramount importance as the area has diminished in size in recent years as each new housing development has eaten away at the original designated area. This must stop! Finally, and most importantly, I am hugely supportive of Policy 11 - Local Green Space. These valued areas - the green lungs of our neighbourhood - must be protected from development by their new designation. One in particular, the last green space right in the middle of the village, is under threat as I write. The land behind Beech Cottage, King Street has huge beautiful trees that form the skyline as Odiham is approached from the Farnham Road. The protection of such a valued Local Green Space, along with the others on this important list, is the responsibility of our generation who are charged with making the decisions that will affect the local landscape for generations to come. We must not fail them!
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
231 RG29 1ER North Warnborough Resident of Parish Sites such as Deptford Lane and the Odiham Deer Park should not even be considered, in one you join North Warnborough and Odiham together and in the other North Warnborough and Greywell. Spurious sales pitches (for example Deptford Lane would provide a football pitch) should be discounted when a development is actually only pre-providing an existing facility that houses have been built on top of roads, doctors surgeries and schools will not cope with the increase in population as they struggle enough today.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
232 RG25 2RR Basingstoke Resident elsewhere I am in favour of site 2 vii (land adjoining Crownfields) as it offers benefits to the community by way of low cost housing, a nursing home and potential for Pre-school development which the other sites do not appear to do. I think the development would have minimal visual impact from the road and is close to existing development.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
122
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
233 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere Can I please send my comments on the pre-submission plan dated September 2015? I would like to support Policy 3: Local Gaps, specifically the new proposed Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. Greywell is an historic village with many listed properties. It also houses a SSSI and is very close to the site of King John's Castle. The inclusion of a local gap would ensure that these important characteristics are maintained and allow both Greywell and North Warnborough to retain their individual identities. The fusion of historic settlements should not be permitted and any development between the two villages would threaten both Greywell and North Warnborough and the SSSI and the castle.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
234 GU51 5SJ Dogmersfield Parish Statutory Consultee Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan - Pre- Council Submission Plan. Your plan has been considered by the Dogmersfield Parish Council and was discussed at the Council meeting on the 9th November. The Council concluded that it was an excellent document but with no significant implications for the Dogmersfield Parish. Therefore I confirm that Dogmersfield Parish Council has no comments on your pre- submission plan. Kind regards,
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
235 RG29 1BT Greywell Resident elsewhere I would like to comment on the pre-submission plan dated September 2015 and in particular articulate support for Policy 3: Local Gaps, specifically the new proposed Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. Greywell houses a SSSI and is an historic village housing many listed properties that is currently unaffected by any adjacent development. The inclusion of a local gap would ensure that these important characteristics are maintained and allow both Greywell and North Warnborough to retain their individual identities. The fusion of historic settlements should not be permitted and any development between the two villages would have a prejudicial effect upon the Grade 1 listed monument of King John's Castle and the area around the River Whitewater.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
123
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
236 RG29 1EU North Warnborough Resident of Parish 1. Spatial plan. This seems to omit the developments for which planning permission has already been given - i.e. Hatchwood and Archery fields. It also fails to outline the proposed green spaces for the Hook Road site opposite the Cat and the land behind Albion Yard, both of which are important gaps between the ancient settlement at Warnborough Green and the canal side developments further along Hook Road. These green spaces should not be within the settlement boundary as they will then be at risk of infill at a later date. 2. Land behind Albion Yard. This is a departure from the linear development on this side of the road and is therefore not in character with the conservation area. The proposed car parking for the castle is un-necessary given the extant under user parking on Tunnel Lane by the swing bridge. With the car park being largely hidden from view, it will be a tempting spot for fly tipping and other anti social behaviour. If the car parking is deleted however, adequate landscaping should be provided to protect the setting and privacy of Thatched Cottage. Access through Albion Yard will affect the capacity of the extant car parking facility at Albion Yard - it would also affect the setting of Thatched Cottage and CastleBridge Cottages. The exit point onto hook Road is on a blind bend with inadequate sight lines to the south which would need to be addressed. The green space between the proposed development and Thatched Cottage and The Cat should be protected by covenant and be outside the settlement boundary. The proposed development will impact the setting of The Swan public house. 3. Land at Dunleys Hill. The proposal does not adequately protect the view from the corner of Western Lane and Dunleys Hill. The focus building is what the eye will be drawn to. 4. Land at Hook Road. This is a much better scheme than the current planning application which is now in appeal. We were informed at the planning meeting for this site that no access is available behind the Chilli Pad as a strip of land between the Chilli Pad and this site is owned by a 3rd party who is not prepared to grant access. The proposed green space opposite the Cat should be protected by putting it outside the settlement boundary. This is an important gap between the historic mainly 15th century settlement around Warnborough Green and the canal side settlement to the South. The gap should be protected. The extant planning applications granted behind CastleBridge Cottages and the Chilli Pad (7 houses in total) should also be included on the map. It is not clear what the purpose of the link footpath is between the sites, surely this could be accomplished by access to the canal towpath? 5. Local Gaps. As commented on the spatial plan, it would make sense to define a local gap between the 15th century Warnborough Green settlement and the proposed new developments behind Albion Yard and along Hook Road. 6. Conservation Areas. Will these be redefined in light of proposed developments? Does it water down the value of conservation areas to include modern development within their boundary? 7. Scoring and other sites excluded. The scoring methodology seems to have bias. The 2 sites behind Buryfields School are outside the conservation area, close to amenities and could have been developed without damage to rural views. The choice of sites within the conservation area and on very visible locations (Crownfields and Dunleys Hill) seems odd. 8. Local Green Spaces. Given that some of these spaces are quite small, shouldn't the proposed green spaces of Hook Road and land behind Albion Yard also have been included? Why is Land to the east of Archery Fields still included when planning permission has already been given on this site? I don't see the logic for making land behind Beech Cottage a protected green space, in that case shouldn't all the large house gardens (e.g. The Priory) be similarly provided with additional protection? 9. Footpaths and road speeds. I would like to see a footpath on both sides of Dunleys Hill - ideally away from the road side. Roadside footpath widths on all main roads within residential areas should all be at least wide enough 124
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
to permit a wheelchair and pedestrian to pass without having to walk onto the road. Roads through North Warnborough and Odiham should have traffic calming measures to encourage slower speeds. Lower speed limits should not be necessary if calming measures are effective.
Response: Comments noted: Archery Fields removed as LGS; Site parameters all reviewed for submission plan. Points on footpaths and traffic noted.
237 SO21 3FL Winchester Statutory Consultee Dear Mr Hale The National Trust would like to thank the Parish Council for the opportunity to comment on the pre-submission Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan. The Trust has reviewed the plan and has no comments to make on its policies or proposals. We would, however, like to take this opportunity to commend the Council on the clarity and comprehensive nature of the plan and its proposals and wish you well in getting it through to being adopted Yours sincerely
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
238 RG29 1NX Odiham Resident of Parish Please acknowledge receipt by return email The submission relating to the proposed development site at Longwood / 4 Western Lane Odiham is flawed. The description states that access is from Western Lane, but the site plan indicates access is in fact from West Street. Western Lane is incorrectly referenced at “A” in the Key to the site plan. Due to these errors it is likely that the evaluation missed some significant issues. The site plan does not show the close proximity of the Robert Mays School entrance/exit. When reviewing the proposed access, the Highways Authority need to consider the impact with regard to the very high level of vehicular movements associated with Robert Mays School. These include private car drop-off and collection, bus and coach drop off and collection, together with staff and student vehicular and pedestrian traffic. A further issue is the parking associated with these pick up/drop off activities and the overspill parking associated with staff, students, and visitors. School activities such as sports events and out of hours activities present additional parking problems. The proposed access road will inevitably and unavoidably be used for school drop-off, collection, parking and turning, which in turn will present road safety hazards. There are proposals for the school pupil numbers to increase considerably over future years, and this will further exacerbate the problems. In summary, permitting an access point so close to such high levels of school traffic and pedestrian movements will create a serious road safety hazard.
Response: Comments noted and matters of fact checked – no changes
125
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
239 GU9 1HB Farnham Statutory Consultee Thank you for your helpful response. Crondall Parish Council would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on your Neighbourhood plan but don’t feel we have anything further to contribute. We wish you success and look forward to observing progress of your plan through its various stages. Kind regards
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 240 RG29 1LY Odiham Resident of Parish Dear Sir, Before I make my comments I would like to say that my overall response to the Plan is positive. I think that the bulk of the Plan is very well thought out and presented, addressing the majority of the concerns that residents have in a logical and responsible way. I wish to comment as a private individual on two aspects of the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Draft Plan: The provision of parking for Odiham High Street Proposed development at Crownfields The provision of parking for Odiham High Street I believe that the decision not to provide any site for a new High Street car park is unsound since 1. responses were ignored, meaning that consultation has not taken place on this issue. Clearly stated concerns were articulated from a large number of residents about parking on and for the High Street. The Plan first questions the validity of these concerns and ignores them in its final recommendations. It makes no effort to validate the concerns of local people against the statistical evidence available within the Plan itself. 2. the methodology is flawed in that the Plan ignores its own statistical evidence and does not back up its recommendations with any figures or numerical analysis. The Plan makes forward projections for homebuilding and from this figures for car ownership and parking needs should have been extrapolated. However this was not done and the Plan states “there is a current lack of evidence to provide a justification” for an additional car park for the High Street. The Plan ignores the statistics which it has itself provided for new housing and for the consequential additional parking needs. 3. the Plan has stated aims that are inconsistent with its recommendations. The plan wishes to strengthen the economic well-being of the High Street and to attract visitors yet a key factor for both of these, adequate parking, is not addressed. 1 Ignored responses – a lack of consultation: At OnwardPlan’s first consultation events in January, the Community overwhelmingly supported the following proposed goals for the Village Centre:… • To consider the options for improving parking capacity close to the centre… Indeed findings from early engagement since summer 2014 suggested that the following were important:…. • Improvements in parking in central Odiham should be included as part of overall development considerations. From February 2015, the OnwardPlan team conducted research among Odiham and North Warnborough's business community, summarized here: • Most consider this a good place to do business and expect their business to grow in the next 5 years. • Free parking was considered the most important single factor to the economic vitality of the Parish… In March 2015, members of the Steering Group conducted two workshops dubbed Ready Steady Plan with 165 geography students from Years 10 and 11 at Robert May's School, of whom, 26 were from Odiham and North Warnborough. As well as learning about Neighbourhood Planning generally, its relevance to Hart District and this Parish, students each completed a paper survey to give the team a better insight into what is important to them. In summary, • Besides school, family and friends, the natural environment matters most to the young people from this Parish. • Improving parking and protecting green spaces is a priority to them… A large number (of residents) said that they would like short term parking to be free of charge. Many said that they would like additional parking close to the 126
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
centre of Odiham. However, this consultation period coincided with an unprecedented peak in demand for parking in early 2015 during substantial construction work on the High Street. Overwhelmingly, on numerous occasions, those asked stated that parking in the centre of the village wass a real need that must be addressed. However, the Plan dismisses the clearly expressed views of a large number of residents over a period of time. The stated assumption that the views of residents are wrong because of a peak in demand due to construction work assumes that • residents cannot distinguish temporary need from long-term requirement • the Plan’s authors know better about the situation than those they are consulting • more parking space taken up by the construction work on the High Street than by the previous occupants of the site, the BMW garage, with their customers, cars, mechanics • there will not be equally great demand for parking from customers for the new Co- Operative store 2 Flawed methodology - ignoring statistical evidence The Plan could deliver in the region of 300 – 350 new homes within the Plan period… Some new housing has been or may be approved on sites not recommended under this Plan pursuant to planning applications already in the planning system (‘non- recommended sites). These may deliver approximately 80 additional new homes. The Plan anticipates 430 new sites. According to the 2011 census, on average in England and Wales in 2011 there were 12 cars per 10 households. Assuming that 430 new houses are built there will be an extra 516 cars with parking needs. The Plan does not bother to calculate this figure when discussing parking needs and does not produce any figures for the amount of extra parking it proposes. 3 Aims that are inconsistent with recommendations The Plan has some clear objectives To seek to strengthen and support the economic activity of restaurants, retail units and commercial premises in and around the High Street. ∙ To ensure Odiham High Street provides an attractive environment as a good place for residents and visitors to shop, eat, drink and socialise. ..To provide visitors with an attractive destination to visit and explore the villages and the surrounding countryside including Basingstoke Canal…. There is not a single concrete proposal that supports the aim of strengthening and supporting the economic activity of the High Street. If these objectives are to be met there is a basic requirement for adequate parking for the High Street, and, if they are met, they will themselves generate extra need for parking, yet nowhere is this illogical opposition of aims to proposals addressed. Aims and proposals: 4.4 Although a site for a new car park is not being proposed here due to the current lack of evidence to provide a justification, the Neighbourhood Plan is nevertheless proposing additional parking capacity in conjunction with specific sites. The Plan states that residents, local students and retailers see more parking as an extremely high priority; it has identified that there will be up to an extra 516 cars needing parking spaces; it has stated aims that will, in order to be successful, and even more if successful, create additional parking, added to this need by saying there will be greater requirement for parking since it wants to provide “an attractive destination to visit” and yet, having provided local demand and statistical proof of need it proceeds to say a site for a new car park is not being proposed here due to the current lack of evidence to provide a justification. The Plan itself has provided that evidence and falls apart under the contradiction of its own internal logic. Proposed development at Crownfields I believe that the proposed development at Crownfields is open to challenge on the grounds that • No consultation took place about a key preliminary issue. At consultation stage residents were not given the choice to include it in a provided list of LGS sites. This could have precluded any development • The Plan has over- ridden the views of those consulted. The Crownfields site has attracted more negative comments than any other 127
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
proposed development yet the Plan proposes building more dwelling units on it than on any other site and in a greater concentration than was preferred by respondents for any site. No consultation on inclusion in LGS list The site lies in an area of open farmland frequently used by walkers, runners and children. It is part of the view as you approach Odiham from Alton, and it is part of the extensive views from The Firs. However, it was not included in the list of proposed LGS sites offered for comment at the May consultation: Please rank any sites that you agree should ideally be designated as Local Green Spaces, marking 1 for your highest priority down to 6 for your lowest priority: Close Meadow (CM) Dunleys Hill, part of (DH) Hockleys Farm (HF) Kitchen Garden (KG) Land adjacent to Archery Fields (AF) Land adjacent to Beech Cottage, King St (BC) Respondents were not asked for any further suggestions for inclusion in this list, merely for comments. This pre-selection process has now become the justification for stating in the Draft Plan: The open spaces most valued by the community were the Canal, the Deer Park, Odiham Common, Broad Oak Common and Dunleys Hill. Had the Crownfields site been included in the list of possible LGS sites it is conceivable that residents would have ranked it highly. Over-riding the views of those consulted The Plan then over-rides two of the consultation findings – the size of any development and the preferred placement of these developments: The majority of respondents favoured small housing sites (up to 30 dwellings), followed by those favouring a mix of small and medium sites (up to 60). The draft Plan proposes to put the largest single development, larger than the majority want on any single site and the equivalent of 75 dwellings, on this site despite stating that this site has attracted more critical comments than any other. To identify this site as one for development and then to allocate this number of dwellings on this site is not meaningful consultation in any sense since respondents were not asked their views about a key issue and then their clearly stated wishes were over-ridden.
Response: Comments noted and changes where appropriate made to the Submission Plan 241 RG29 1LY Odiham Resident of Parish First of all may I say how much I appreciate and applaud the amount of work and thought that has been put into the Draft Neighbourhood plan and the consultation process that has taken place has been thorough and very professional. However, one thing that seems to be lacking in the document is any suggestion for provision of additional parking in the centre of the village. I volunteer in one of the shops on the High Street and time and again people complain that they cannot find anywhere to park. We know we lose custom because of this. Also sometimes volunteers! We recently had a lady who was looking forward to volunteering with us but as she is unable to walk very far and cannot park for longer than two hours close by she was sadly unable to join the team. I am part of inOdiham CIC and I work with some of the people who have businesses on the High Street and I know they struggle with footfall due to the lack of central parking. The Deer Park car park, next to the health centre, is usually full. Patients are no longer able to use the car park at the health centre so they tend to park in the Deer Park car park. The small car park in the Bury is very often full at any time of day. People need houses and Odiham needs development to survive and move forward but people need plenty of places to park as well. I am sure the people who move in to the new housing development at Hatchwood will not be using our High Street shops as it is too far to walk carrying shopping and they won’t bring their cars down the hill as they will find nowhere to park. They will, I am sure, head straight down the by-pass to Newlyns, where there is ample parking, 128
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
or head to Hartley Wintney, where there is a large park just behind the High Street. I note that one of your stated aims is to support the High Street and I do not see how this is being achieved through the plan if it does not address the most pressing issue facing the High Street. People from different local community groups are working hard to make Odiham an attractive place to visit (as well as in which to live) but no matter how hard we all work if visitors cannot find anywhere to park they will just drive through and miss all that we have to offer.
Response: Comments on Parking noted: section reviewed for Submission Plan 242 BN13 3NZ Worthing Statutory Consultee Many thanks for consulting Southern Water on your PreSubmission Neighbourhood Plan. I can confirm that your Neighbourhood Plan area is outside both the area we supply water and the area we take wastewater from. As such, we have no comments to make on your plan. Kind regards
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
243 WC1B 3HF London Consultee Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above Neighbourhood Consultation. Planning Policy in the National Planning Policy Framework identifies how the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Encouraging communities to become more physically active through walking, cycling, informal recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process and providing enough sports facilities of the right quality and type and in the right places is vital to achieving this aim. This means positive planning for sport, protection from unnecessary loss of sports facilities and an integrated approach to providing new housing and employment land and community facilities provision is important. It is important therefore that the Neighbourhood Plan reflects national policy for sport as set out in the above document with particular reference to Pars 73 and 74 to ensure proposals comply with National Planning Policy. It is also important to be aware of Sport England’s role in protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing fields (see link below), as set out in our national guide, ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England – Planning Policy Statement’. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities- planning/planning-for-sport/development-management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/ Sport England provides guidance on developing policy for sport and further information can be found following the link below: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/forward-planning/ Sport England works with Local Authorities to ensure Local Plan policy is underpinned by robust and up to date assessments and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports delivery. If local authorities have prepared a Playing Pitch Strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports strategy it will be important that the Neighbourhood Plan reflects the recommendations set out in that document and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support the delivery of those recommendations. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/ If new sports facilities are being proposed Sport England recommend you ensure such facilities are fit for purpose and designed 129
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
in accordance with our design guidance notes. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools- guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/ Regards, Planning Administration Team
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 244 RG29 1LJ Odiham Resident of Parish Good Day My main concern about the NP is this: I have already made comments to YOU and OPC re the Deer Park Development as I live on Deer Park View and, along with my many neighbours, totally oppose the community hub suggested and the increase in traffic it will bring on an already busy, and dangerous, narrow road. I AM ASTOUNDED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN NP! Kind regards.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
245 RG29 1NR Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 2. a) We are very much opposed to the proposed development at Longwood and Western Lane, largely because of the ensuing increased volume of traffic on Western Lane and at the junction with Dunleys Hill. During term time, this is already a very congested area, with many cars and coaches. It is already difficult, trying to turn out of Western Lane into Dunleys Hill at the school rush hour times and the planned development would merely make this more congested and dangerous. Policy 2. b) Crownfields. We do hope the proposal to have a care home on this site goes ahead. As is pointed out in the consultation document, the number of older residents in Odiham is increasing. A local care home is urgently needed. Policy 4. We support the necessity for a varied mix of housing, with emphasis on any measures for affordable housing which would enable the young people of the village to stay here. Policy 8. We support the emphasis on the value of the Basingstoke Canal as the most important recreational and environmental facility this area possesses. Policy 9. We support the need to retain the balance of retail and residential in the High Street and welcome any measures - i.e. easier parking - to promote the profitability of our shops & restaurants. Our sincere thanks to the OnwardPlan Steering Group for all your hard work to produce this Plan & to try to secure the best possible future for our beautiful environment.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 246 RG29 1BD North Warnborough Resident of Parish Policy 3 and Policy 7. I very strongly support the a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell to: 1. Preserve the very special landscape and the SSSI 2. Retain the identity of the two distinct villages Other: Traffic in The Street, North Warnborough. Anything that can be done to reduce the size, quantity and speed of vehicles travelling down The Street would be very much appreciated. In addition an increase in the number of Lycra clad cyclists, often in groups and at the weekend, have been observed speeding down The Street well in excess of the speed limit of 20mph. These cyclists are very likely to cause an accident if they have not done so already
130
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
247 RG29 1DW North Warnborough Resident of Parish Whilst I understand the thrust of this is about housing development, which is thankfully limited, it is disappointing that it has very little to say about Sport and Recreation. It states 4.14 that the OPC "will encourage and facilitate the operation and use of these assets and clubs" and yet we have no signage in the High Street to these clubs which leads locals and newly arrived alike to say they didn't even know the clubs were there.I am sure the clubs need additional members particularly local ones to support future growth and this would surely be a small but worthwhile step. The existing clubs can I am sure speak for themselves but there appears to be little provision for new sport facilities to accompany the growth in population from the developments.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 248 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish Many thanks and congratulations for all the hard work done. I fully support the neighbourhood plan that you are going to submit. Am particularly pleased with the policy of keeping the settlement of Odiham, N.Warnborough and Greywell separate. As a rural area, green spaces and conservation areas are very important to us all and am pleased their importance has been recognised. I agree with the medium to small sites for building and also the mix of housing.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
249 WC2B 4AN London Statutory Consultee Email 28th October 2015 Dear Sir/Madam Thanks for your e-mail of 14.10.15 in regard to the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan - Pre-Submission Plan consultation. We have reviewed your proposals and can confirm that the ORR has no comment to make on this particular document. For future reference ORR only requires to be consulted if the minerals & waste plan, transport plan, planning application, core strategy etc mentions or impacts on the mainline railway, tramway or London Underground network. I have attached a copy of our localism guidance for reference, which can be found at: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/localism- guidance.pdf Kind regards
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
131
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
250 GU1 4LZ Guildford Statutory Consultee E mail 26th October 2015 Thank you for your email notifying us of the forthcoming consultation for the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan Please note that from 1 April 2015, we became Highways England, a government owned company. Highways England’s role is to operate, maintain and modernise the strategic road network (SRN) in line with the Roads Investment Strategy, reflecting public interest and to provide effective stewardship of the network’s long term operation and integrity. For Odiham Parish Council this relates to the M3. We have reviewed the consultation and have no comment at this time. I hope this is helpful. Your sincerely
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
251 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish I would like to express strong support for Policy 3, the creation of a Local Gap between North Warnborough, Greywell and Odiham. There is a need to maintain the distinct differences between each of the villages and stop the coalescence of the settlements.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
252 RG29 1AP Odiham Resident of Parish E mail 23rd October 2015 WITH ATTACHMENT The restoration of a medieval deer park seems like a rather odd idea to me but the landowner is obviously rich enough to have such a vision, and in a position to make it happen – better perhaps that than buying a football club. From a community point of view, backing his plan might seem a bit of a gamble, will it actually prevent horrendous housing development on the site or open the door to it? Whilst SPAG supporters can take considerable credit for successfully campaigning against the initial proposal, OPC have decided that the revised vision should be supported and they will work with Bell Cornwell on its realisation, to maximise benefits to the Parish. They appear confident that the legal covenants now offered provide more protection from further development than ‘conservation area’, ‘heritage asset’ or even ‘local green space’ status; but the forthcoming planning application may still not meet Hart District Council’s stringent criteria. OPC acknowledge that much detail has to be sorted out and that answers are needed to many questions. Will Bell Cornwell submit a planning application before November 30th when the Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Plan consultation ends? Inset 1 of the Draft Plan (p60) shows the boundaries of an LGS that includes the proposed sites for buildings that are key to the new Deer Park proposal; it seems that a decision on the latter is required before any consideration of LGS designation. If the Park does get a green light, then revised LGS boundaries could then be proposed (attached map). If a frustrated owner sells the land to a developer, there can be little doubt that many more houses will eventually be built on it, to the chagrin of future generations.
132
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
253 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Letter 26th October 2015 I wish to record by strongest support for the above plan and in particular for Policy 3 which designed a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. Hampshire has always been proud of its villages not only for their beauty but also for their historical interest and Greywell is no exception. It has won the award in the past for the best kept village in Hampshire. It is now faced with the prospect of losing its identity in a much larger and more congested dormitory area. We in Greywell are fighting to keep our village with its beauty and historical attractions intact. Set in a beautiful valley near the springs and headwaters of the River Whitewater between downland pastures to the east and well kept woodlands to the west, its houses, streets and gardens are typical of a Hampshire country village including a small historical and beautiful church. The Local Gap will ensure that historical sites, like Odiham Castle, favoured by King John and the Basingstoke Canal (which was used in World War 1 to transport wooden wheels, made in Greywell, to Aldershot for army use with fields guns and transport) will not be lost in a new congested area. The area of the Local Gap is at the moment a SSSI. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Naturalist Society have an important interest in this SSSI and use it for students to visit and study nature. There is a real risk that all these good points about Greywell may be lost together with our village identity. The coalescence of settlements must be avoided at all costs and should never be permitted. Let us hope that your proposal is the first hurdle to be jumped successfully in saving the future of our lovely village. With grateful thanks for all your help. Yours sincerely
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 254 RG27 8JA Consultee Letter 23 October 2015 Dear Sirs Policy 3 I would very much like to support Policy 3 – Local Gap, wearing my hat of the above Society’s Chairman and its 250 members. It is so important to preserve the local rural villages through which the River Whitewater runs. Joining up settlements such as Greywell, North Warnborough and Odiham would be such a shame both from the individuality of the village life to the practicality of extra traffic spoiling the tranquillity of the quiet lanes. We in England are blessed with picturesque countryside which tourists form abroad are very jealous of. The come to appreciate our Whitewater River Valley with its birds, fish and plants and by joining up all the villages we would kill the tranquillity and beauty. Please retain Greywell and North Warnborough as separate villages and maintain and protect a notably beautiful part of the District, an SSSI. Yours faithfully
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
133
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
255 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish Overall, the committee must be congratulated on a well constructed plan backed by detailed consultations. In particular, they are to be applauded for their persistence and effort in persuading OPC to include the Deer Park in the pre-submission plan, although it is uncertain at present whether the element of OPC opposition may yet lead to its exclusion from the final submission plan. When we moved to Odiham 35 years ago, we saw the Deer Park as just fields, open countryside. The ability to walk into fields from our home, to enjoy the space and calm and distant views, was a marvellous antidote to a week in the office and the stresses of commuting. Since then we have come to recognise their importance to Odiham and North Warnborough as part of the historic and rural identity of these communities. The boundary has even shaped their boundaries. The rich network of footpaths shows how important the 'Deer Park' fields have been historically and these paths are still used daily by walkers and dog walkers. People use the area off path as well, without complaint or permission from the landowner, which allows for children's activities such as flying kites, lets people visit the ancient ponds in the copse and generally tailor walking routes to suit age and ability. Why would anyone want to see this area converted to a private estate, with boundary fencing, privacy screening and a boundary planting of oak trees, all of which would constrain views, constrain access and constrain use? Experience says that walking across a private garden, however large, is not the same as the freedom of walking fields. The proposal to convert the whole area to residential in this way would also lose the important and current Local Gap. More significantly, the inclusion of a housing estate along the western boundary of the fields would cut North Warnborough's direct connection to any form of open views completely. This is and has been a loved and used local green space. Now we would like it to be formally recognised as such with actual LGS status.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result. 256 RG29 1AL Odiham Resident of Parish A lot of good work has gone into the preparation of this plan. I agree with all that is stated in the summary by the Steering Group. The only alteration I would recommend is that the WHOLE of the Deer Park should be designated green space, not just part of it.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
257 SP1 3SU Salisbury Landowner or Email 17th October 2015 WITH ATTACHMENTS Dear Sirs On behalf of the freehold owners of the land Representative known as Hockleys Farm, please find attached herewith their representations against the proposal to include this area in the Neighbourhood Plan as a local green space. We trust this will be given your serious attention and you will be able to amend your plans accordingly and withdraw this area of land from this designation. Yours faithfully
134
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: See report from Consultant
258 TW18 3AX Staines Landowner or LETTER ATTACHMENT PROVIDES COMMENTS Dear Sirs In response to the above consultation, please find Representative representations on behalf of CALA Homes (Thames) Limited. I would be grateful if you could confirm safe receipt. As mentioned in our submission, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the matters we have raised and I look forward to hearing from you on this in due course. Yours faithfully
Response: See report from Consultant 259 RG29 1BD North Warnborough Resident of Parish Congratulations on your work on the plan. From my perspective there are a few key principles, which are generally there, but I would like to emphasize 1) The importance of space between the villages, including between North Warnborough and Greywell - the proposals for the field between these two villages is totally unacceptable 2) The preservation of the peaceful, rural walk to the canal and King John’s castle 3) Avoiding development on water meadows near the river 4) Ensuring that development sites have adequate drainage provision before development 5) Strategic land around Robert Mays school should be preserved to allow for potential expansion and even the creation of playing fields 6) Priorisation of small/medium sized sites in inoffensive infill and fringe locations, which don’t change the character. I think your choices are the least offensive options 7) Prevention of large scale development on the fringes which exceed the target numbers. 8) Parking provision – if we want a vibrant high street, we need more parking provision Kind regards
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 260 RG29 1NZ Odiham Resident of Parish The intial element to highlight is that of an approximate population of circa 10000 only about 750 people have responsed and of this only just over half the responses have been positive to the plans, equivalent to less than 5% of the population. When we have spoken to residents around us many have not even been made aware of the Neighbourhood plan, let alone the specific sites that will be developed on their doorsteps, this seems crass given the residents in our (and the adjacent) streets are likely to be most affected with the Crownfields development blighting their only rural aspect and overlooking many gardens and properties. The overall consensus called for smaller developments that did not change the borders of the village and to utilise existing space between developments. The Crownfields site in particualr can be seen from many miles away across the M3 and would also danger the view of the historic FIrs, which was one of the original beacon sites from the Napoleonic wars. This would impact both the the historic heritage of the village and contravene one of the stated aims. By contract some of the sites that specifically fall within the wishes of the community and have little of no visual impact to the aspect of the village have been seemingly ignored. The next issue I would like to address is the vehicular access and increasing the traffic congestion through an already busy housing area and although some mitigation has 135
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
been offerered through the use of access to the Crownfields site the Alton Road is busy and the creation of an additional junction will be a hazard that may drive users to the surrounding areas thereby impacting on the adjacent houses. If I could summarise the outlook of this plan it appears that the wishes of the bulk of the population, aready occupying higher density housing have been at best excluded and at worse deliberately ignored in order to allow the perpetuation of the split in affluence already prevelant in the village.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 261 RG29 1PL Odiham Resident of Parish I am a local person who has lived in North Warnborough and Odiham all my 42 years. I registered for council housing at the age of 20, and was eventually offered a flat (half a 2 bed house converted) when I was 32! I Am not a London Banker, or born of money, so lets face it, I was never going to be able to afford to buy in my village. So I have had to play the system. If you know older people who want to down size or are going into care, swapping is easy, if you don't you are stuck. There is no where to go!! We need more social housing. But where to put it? The snobs wont let "Us" near them as it will de-value their mansions, so we are cast out to the edge of the villages. This is where the problem arises. There are only conservation areas or area's of local or national interest left to build on. I have worked every day of my adult life, I don't claim benefits, so what can we all do? Because social housing rent is based on a "National formula" calculated on the average income and rent for the area's you live in, I pay more than £250 per month that my friend in Basingstoke who has a 3 bed with a garage. ( I now have now have a 2 bed no drive) The issue of where to build new housing needs to take into consideration local places of interest, The Crownfields development, ruins a well known historical landmark (The Firs) and should not be put forward. There is also the major problem of safety and access which will cause considerable disruption to all residents when finished with the traffic and roads. Are there any proposals to increase schools capacity? I know both Infant and junior schools are full to bursting, will we get a bigger doctors? The Land on the right going up Dunleys hill is a perfect solution, its large, already has houses 50% of the way round it and access is easier than Some of the other options.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
262 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish Housing Development Sites. New housing should be limited to affordable housing; Odiham has plenty of expensive houses already, but few that young people can afford. The Gap between villages at Dunleys hill should be maintained to keep the 2 villages distinct. Local Gaps. The Local Gap between Odiham and N.Warnborough is very important to maintain the distinct villages and avoid both areas converging into one mass. Housing Mix. It is important to keep a high percentage (higher than just 20%) of new homes available to those with local connections, otherwise those of us who were brought up in the village won't be able to live in the village in future. Odiham Parking. There is car parking available by the doctors surgery, it's just that people don't like paying for it. Local Green Space. I have spent most of my childhood walking and playing in the deer park and 136
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
think it is an absolute must as a local green space. I regularly use all the footpaths and have found several grass snakes and an Adder in this park. Also at night, you can see literally thousands of bats and I have also seen a barn owl fly along the hedges. Policy. I think there should have been a policy to protect the deer park as it is one of the villagers' most valued areas of the village.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
263 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish e mail 15th Nov 2015 Thank you for all your hard work on this Draft Plan. I would like to make the following comments - I am in favour of - a – Maintaining a visible gap of green landscape between North Warnborough and Odiham, and Greywell and North Warnborough b – Car-parking for those who wish to enjoy the new amenity space intended on Dunley’s Hill. c – Maintaining a balance between retail, restaurants and residential on Odiham High St. with particular financial support for local/independent businesses, and also discouraging national restaurant chains e.g.Starbucks or Costa Coffee. d – Housing appropriate for local people, whether youngsters with children (who will attend local schools) or ‘oldsters’ who wish to downsize, thereby releasing bigger family homes. I am less in favour of - a – Regarding the small parking area behind the CoOp as sufficient to ‘improve’ parking on the High St. It is poorly signed and is almost impossible to access when the CoOp delivery vehicle is parked there. Of course the shop needs deliveries but customer parking is not by any means enough. b – Construction vehicles using King Street to access potential building works behind Beech Cottage, or any other heavy traffic impacting the old properties on that road. c – Regarding Broad Oak as exempt from further appropriate residential construction. Thank you for considering these points. Best wishes
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
264 GU12 6SG Ash Resident elsewhere Please can you explain why in the Proposals Map the settlement boundary has been adjusted to incorporate the new housing sites but ignored at Hatchwood where development is under construction? The development cannot be ignored because as a statement of fact the Proposals Map will not reflect the settlement as built in 2032. Please could you also explain why the settlement boundary has not been extended to pick up the Wates Planning permission on land south of Farnham Road? This permission I assume contributes to what housing Odiham has been recently imposed to deliver but the Plan seems silent. The Plan should only be silent on this development if you are satisfied that the development will not proceed otherwise the Proposals Map will not truly reflect the settlement form in 2032? These are very strange omissions. There is a danger that the public are being mislead.
Response: Plan updated taking account of these comments in light of subsequent Planning decisions 137
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
265 RG29 1JT North Warnborough Resident of Parish We strongly support Policy 3, in particular the creation of a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. This will help maintain a beautiful part of the District and will preserve the character and setting of North Warnborough conservation area. We are not supportive of any policies that would allow the coalescence of settlements.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
266 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish I think the Pre-Submission plan for Odiham and North Warnborough has been well thought out, and offers the best combination of solutions for this area. It seems to incorporate a good mix of housing for all age groups in small to medium sized sites, which protect the identity of the villages and surrounding area. I particularly like the idea of having 'local gaps' between us and other areas so as to retain our individuality. I think this is particularly important when you consider the major historical site of King John's Castle, together with the natural habitats for our local wildlife. This plan should meet the housing needs of this area over the next 20 years, whilst retaining the beautiful surrounding countryside for local people and visitors.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
267 RG29 1LE Odiham Resident of Parish Policy 9. Parking provisions in the High Street and the control of traffic speed are both important issues to be addressed. Policy 11. Local green spaces are an essential part of the character of Odiham. I strongly endorse the contribution of the Neighbourhood Plan to this particular priority.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
268 RG29 1LF Odiham Resident of Parish Support for SPAG's proposals relating to the Deer Park
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
138
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
269 RG29 1BE North Warnborough Resident of Parish Policy 3. I would like ALL the intended local gaps to remain in the plan to adoption, as justified in the pre- submission draft. Preservation of the landscape and historic / natural environments, and prevention of inappropriate ribbon development and urban sprawl are vital. I particularly support the worthy campaigns of the Preserve Deptford Lane Association and Save the Deer Park Action Group in attempting to protect the NW- Greywell gap and the Deer Park from ANY development. The monstrous Deer Park proposals are a barely- disguised commercial development which if permitted will desecrate a much-loved local asset simply to yield its promoter a quick £20 million-plus profit. Speculative housing planned for the west side of the park constitutes the thin end of a potentially very large wedge into the current designated gap, which should instead remain inviolable - as should all such areas that exist to constrain development. The notion of introducing a private zoo of captive Cervidae infested with disease-carrying ticks beggars belief, due to its absurdly literal misinterpretation of the nature of a deer park and its general recklessness. Policy 11. As with the gaps, I would like to see ALL these Local Green Space designations carried through into the adopted plan. My comments relating to the Deer Park under Policy 3 apply equally here.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 270 RG29 1DJ Odiham Resident of Parish It would be helpful if the plan had an explanation of the different colour codes used. Why does it not show the development called Montfort Place? Or is that deemed to be outside the neighbourhood? Also, the field between The Mapletons and Hatchwood Place has no designation, it was hoped that it would be a preserved green space since it has a right of way and two important trees (one with a swing).
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 271 RG29 1PA Odiham Resident of Parish I am alarmed at the proposed development of the village. I understand that SOME new housing is required but these plans seem excessive. I don't believe that full consideration has been given to: Capacity of our local schools - Robert Mays school has already grown to over 1200 children (doubled in the last 20 years but the site has not doubled in size). I live in the road opposite the school. The traffic and parking at the school is horrendous and little consideration is given to residents by parents dropping their children to and from school. The school have already converted CORRIDORS into classrooms to accommodate pupils. How will the schools cope with the growth in population. Local Services. I already have to wait several days for a TELEPHONE appointment with our local GP surgery. If they are too busy to service the existing population, what are the plans for them to cope with such an explosive growth? The same goes for local dentists and other services. I have been fortunate enough not to have to deal with the police frequently but I imagine these services which we hear are always being cut will be equally effected? The Environment. The effect on local wildlife and heritage sites such as The Firs, the canal, deer park. The roads 139
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
in and out of the village - particularly alongside the chalkpit. This is a busy and dangerous road, where will the entrance to the housing site proposed for Crownfields be? We often hear about the RAF base being sold off for private housing? Is this still a possibility?
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 272 RG29 1AY Odiham Resident of Parish I feel very strongly that the green spaces as designated should be preserved and that any housing built should be as recommended by the onward plan, and be mixed with affordable houses.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
273 RG29 1AY Odiham Resident of Parish 11.vi Land behind Beech Cottage, King Street I walk regularly around the area above. As it says in the neighbourhood plan there is no public access and indeed almost no public visibility. The trees are nothing special and the better ones could have preservation orders placed on them. As there is a great need to identify areas for new homes there is in my opinion little to be lost by allowing sensitive development, and perhaps, by so doing, reducing the pressure on other areas.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 274 RG29 1JL Odiham Resident of Parish I do not believe that the proposal for a high dependency care home as part of the Crownfields site has been understood by respondents to the original NP questionnaire. This proposal should be positioned as a potential provider of employment opportunity for the community not as a care resource that is likely to be widely used or available to the community. Few residents are likely to be in a position to afford the care fees of the planned facility meaning that the utility that it delivers for the community will be limited relative to the cost of development on this sensitive and important site.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
275 RG29 1ER North Warnborough Resident of Parish The revised plan has taken account of comments made at the earlier stage and has now produced a detailed, carefully crafted and balanced plan which I strongly support.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 140
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
276 RG29 1AR Odiham Resident of Parish I support the inclusion of green spaces in the NP but I do not fully agree with your definitions or choices. To me a green space should ideally be available, at least partially, for community use, but at the least visible to the community. Thus: Dunley's Hill, with the proposed public space is a positive. The Kitchen Garden, being right at the centre of the village should if at all possible, be available for public use (I realise this is beyond your control but should be encouraged) Beech Cottage land is hidden from public view and so should not be designated green space unless it becomes visable or usable The Deer Park, although valued as green space, should be allowed limited development if it enhances the village amenity as long as it maintains the green "sight-lines" to (and from) the horizon (ie no building close the the southern boundary). There is much noise about this development, the NP should not restrict options, but all options should be put to a public vote, separately to the NP itself.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 277 RG29 1BZ Greywell Resident elsewhere I would like to express my wholehearted support for the principle of leaving a gap between the villages of Greywell and North Warnborough. We regularly walk in the area of land identified in the plan as the 'Local Gap' and consider it an especially lovely part of this area, and as a site of SSSI would be a significant loss if the gap was not maintained. We also regularly walk from Odiham to Greywell after an evening at a pub or restaurant, and the walk down Deptford Lane in the inky blackness of the beautiful Hampshire countryside would be spoilt for ever if the gap was filled in. Greywell is a unique place to live and has a wonderful charm because of its sense of being surrounded by green and open spaces. It would be a tragedy if it were to become part of and seen to be joined up with North Warnborough.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
278 RG29 1NU Odiham Consultee We are the only community run pre-school in the area and as such are constantly full with a waiting list as we offer affordable provision for everyone in the area. Our recent Ofsted inspection was incorrectly published showing us as having 71 places with only 54 children on roll. In fact it is the other way around. We had 71 children attending with only 54 places - managed purely by children doing a variety of sessions. Year on year trends show the need to be growing at a constant rate and we are under constant pressure by Hampshire County Council to take 2 year olds which would cut down considerably on the number of pre-school places we could offer long term. It is essential that more early years places are provided within the village as it grows whether it be affiliated to Leapfrogs or not. Odiham is in a unique position that it can offer high level, good quality education from early years through to further education and it is something that should be maintained at all costs.
141
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Neighbouring villages do not have spaces available to take our children so without forward planning where will they go? Early education and care is often overlooked in the planning process but with the village expanding to such a large extent, encouraging young families into the area, it is an area which should be given priority.
Response: Comments noted: Pre-school needs are covered in Plan 279 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish 3. Local Gaps The two local gaps are very important as they maintain the communities as they have developed over the last thousand years. The new local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell would be particularly welcome as it will achieve far more than just maintaining the status quo. It will ensure the maintenance of some of the best views and landscape in the entire parish featuring as it does proximity to the River Whitewater, a declared Riverine environment with its SSSI properties, King John's Castle, one of only two grade 1 listed buildings in the parish, the Basingstoke Canal and finally protect the North Warnborough conservation area and its many listed buildings from adjacent development fears. 7. North Warnborough Conservation Area. This should be protected from infill and adjacent development as it is already subjected to development pressure with the accompanying problems of traffic and drainage. 8. Basingstoke Canal. The area, particularly by King john's Castle, is probably the most attractive from a scenic perspective in the entire parish. It must together with all the areas within sight of it be protected from development.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
280 RG29 1BL North Warnborough Resident of Parish 2. Housing Dev Sites: Have chosen an acceptable number, size and locations. If anything need to ensure there is enough to stop developers accusing the local authority of an under supply to meet future targets. 3. Local gaps: The recognition that there needs to be a local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell is essential and most welcome. Not only does it maintain the discrete community entity of the two locations but it will protect the important views across the Whitewater valley to and from the Basingstoke Canal and King John's Castle, also protect the North Warnborough conservation area with its many listed buildings, plus the SSSIs alongside the River Whitewater. 7. North Warnborough Conservation Area: This needs careful maintenance and protection from developers trying to infill and build alongside 8. Basingstoke Canal: Forms, alongside the River Whitewater and the castle, possibly the most attractive countryside within Odiham Parish. The views to and from it, plus all the footpaths, need total protection from change and particularly development. Sports and Recreation: The parish is blessed with sufficient facilities but a more coordinated approach with the RAF station and Robert Mays school would ensure demand is satisfied until well into the future
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
142
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
281 RG29 1AX Odiham Resident of Parish Completely happy with the plan as currently proposed - the provision of affordable homes is a key principle, as is the maintenance of strategic gaps and green spaces.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
282 RG29 1DL North Warnborough Resident of Parish On the whole I like the contents of the Onward Plan and think it will go a long way to protecting our villages while allowing for the fact that we will need to build extra houses. However, I am very disappointed that you are still recommending the Hook Road site, North Warnborough as a place to build houses. This are falls in 2 conservation areas, is fundamental to the nature of North Warnborough, is adjacent to the Canal which you state is one of the most valued assets of our village and, as importantly, protects neighbouring houses from the danger of flooding. I do not believe that the Steering Committee has assessed this site correctly against the criteria that you have specified and there are other sites that would be far more suitable. This is not 'nimbyism'. We would all prefer to have no further building but know that this is not possible and I have no objections to the other planned sites in North Warnborough. In fact, I wish the process for the Jolly Miller and The Swan would be accelerated as they are currently eyesores in the village. I urge you to reconsider the Hook Road site. I feel so strongly about this issue that although I appreciate the rest of the Plan I will be voting 'no' unless this is changed.
Response: Comment noted – sites reviewed in light of pre-submission comments and no changes made. 283 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Policy 3 We are very keen to preserve the Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell so that both villages can retain their separate (historic) identities, as well as protect a beautiful part of the area. Once these Local Gaps have been eroded they can never be reclaimed.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
284 RG29 1EU Odiham Resident of Parish It would be clearer if the development at Hatchwood Farm were included in the Plan Maps as it is now a reality, including the community green area there. 11.V green space is a bit confusing as most people understood that Hart has already approved a planning application there
Response: Updated for Submission now that planning formally granted
143
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
285 RG29 1BX Greywell Resident elsewhere I am a resident of Greywell and am delighted that under this policy the Parish Council are promoting the retention of green space between the villages of North Warnborough and Greywell. Whilst the historic centres of both villages are unusually close compared to the average distances separating settlements, they have both managed to retain their individual characteristics and charm. It would be damaging to the the character of both villages and both communities if the gap were ever to close. Long may it stay.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
286 RG29 1NB Odiham Resident of Parish Beech cottage: there is no public access to this site therefore I cannot see how designating it as LGS benefits the community. Only those who live on the periphery are able to admire the view. The public are only able to to see it if a resident allows them into their home! Therefore I believe that LGS designation is simply being used to block development. Why has the NPSG not negotiated with the developer to allow development, as per Dunleys Hill, and in return get a public area (with access) gifted to the community? Deer Park: again this smacks of using LGS as a tool to purely block development (Bell Cornwall vision). The Deer Park is already covered by conservation area status so any development would need to meet stringent criteria. Also the proposed development by Bell Cornwall would, in my personal view, greatly improve the site, gift land to the parish, make it user friendly for the less able and most importantly install covenants preventing any future development. Again I highlight that the NPSG have negotiated with the Dunleys Hill developer advocating development at 2.v on the basis that the community are gifted a 'local green' in return. Why then does the same principle not apply to the Deer Park, especially when the offer is much better than Dunleys Hill? The Parish Council endorse the Deer Park vision and wish to ensure that the best deal is struck for the community, so why designate as an LGS? I believe the Deer Park should be removed from the NP LGS list and development be allowed to continue on its own merit against current planning policies and regulations. Statistics: the numbers for the public survey are very misleading. When quoting 85% of the public thought 'X', what that actually means is 85% of the 711 that answered the survey thought 'X'. This must be clarified as there are some 4500 people that were able to respond to the NPSG survey. This means that the views expressed are only from approximately 16% of the parish - a minority not the majority as the NP constantly states. All statistics must clearly state that they are based on 711 out of the total number of persons in the parish able to respond to the survey.
Response: : Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
144
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
287 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere The existing land which forms the gap between North Warnborough and Greywell, is the last bit of land between these two distinct communities, and I agree with the proposal to formalise what already provides the open space between the villages. It would maintain the distinct and individual communities, endorse any development being defined as part of communities rather than between them; and prevent irreversible sprawl.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
288 RG29 1BZ Greywell Resident elsewhere I write in support of maintaining a local gap between the villages of Greywell (where I live) and North Warnborough. The village of Greywell has a medieval history (1167-, Pipe Rolls; 1235- Close Rolls) and as such is part of the history of England. It has always had a defined existence and its own personality, with its church and other significant buildings, as well as riverside access, canal and woodland walks. To allow this individuality to be subsumed into a greater conglomeration would destroy its character completely and would be a travesty of the idea of a community in rural England. The demands made on the environment and on the community of the village would be overwhelming and would irrevocably alter the historical identity of the village.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
289 RG29 1NH Odiham Resident of Parish I fully support the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, and particularly the recommendations on Local Green Spaces.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
290 RG29 1NH Odiham Resident of Parish I totally support this draft Neighbourhood Plan, and especially the recommendations in relation to Local Green Spaces.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
145
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
291 RG29 1PL Odiham Resident of Parish A blot on the landscape; that's what the Crownfields site will be if it goes ahead. 1. The Firs is a heritage site seen from the M3 and as far as Minley. The sky line view of the ancient Fir Trees has been one of the Beacon Hills going back to 1588 at the time of the Armada it was one of the signalling stations between Plymouth and London. The Beacon or Odiham Firs is an eminence just over 400 feet above sea level. It commands panoramic views, southwards along the Hampshire Downs, Eastwards towards Surrey, and North and West over the well wooded country side to Berkshire. 2. The Chalk pit another heritage site from the French Revolution with the prisoners also the listed buildings around it, will be impacted by number 3. 3. The Alton road is so busy now, lets add say 400 people ( 30 houses with average 3 persons, totalling 90 a care home for 60 persons that is high dependency so say 180 people there) and the NURSERY where did that pop up from? Turning right on to the Alton road is dangerous! So serious road works needed to build lights or a roundabout, impact on the chalk pit!!! All that will happen is The Firs will become a rat run, Heritage site !!!!
Response: Comments noted. Crownfields site parameters reviewed for submission plan
292 RG29 1LJ Odiham Resident of Parish I remain very concerned about the lack of inclusion of the Deer Park, given it is so much a part of our recreational environment I would want to see a strong policy on this within the plan.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
293 RG29 1LU Odiham Resident of Parish I am opposed to the proposed plan to develop the Deer Park and support the idea that it should be retained as a local gap and green space within the Conservation Area, supporting its heritage asset status.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
294 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere As a resident of Greywell, I wish to strongly support the creation of a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I believe it is vitally important to do so for the following reasons: 1. Greywell has been recorded as a distinct village community since the foundation of its church in 1167. 2. This small rural village is of immense heritage value precisely because it is not part of a larger urban conglomeration. Villages which have accommodated new houses but have preserved much of their structural integrity over hundreds of years are very rare. To maintain this, Greywell needs to be protected by the creation of a Local Gap. 3. The valley of the river Whitewater has been recognised in planning as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Establishing a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell will help preserve this irreplaceable asset. 4. The site of the Local Gap 146
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
is part of the habitat of the important bat colony resident in the Greywell Canal tunnel. Preserving this large field in its current agricultural form will maintain a nationally significant bat habitat without disturbance. 5. The source of the Whitewater river in the valley forms a unique ecosystem containing rare plant and insect life. By segregating this area from North Warnborough, a Local Gap can help preserve the SSSI and its flora and fauna from unrelenting external pressure. 6. Creating this Local Gap clearly articulates the responsibility we have to take the long-term view, to preserve a historic, environmental and leisure asset for all those who enjoy it today, and for generations to come.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
295 RG29 1AN Odiham Resident of Parish 3 Local Gaps We would like to see the local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell maintained for historic reasons and its importance as a defining boundary between the two villages. This space ensures that the villages keep their separate identities for present and future generations. 11 Local Green Spaces The Deer Park - We are strongly opposed to any private development on this only remaining green space between Odiham and North Warnborough. It should be preserved as a Conservation Area as it is part of Odiham's natural heritage to be passed on to future generations. It has important historic significance and is an undeveloped green field space used by many local residents for walking and enjoying the natural undeveloped countryside. Any plans to turn Deer Park into a semi-urban park would deprive both Odiham and North Warnborough residents of a valuable asset and would do little if anything to attract visitors to Odiham High Street.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
296 RG29 1AS Odiham Resident of Parish Conservation Area, Heritage Status, Local Gap, Local Green Space Our view on the future of Odiham Deer Park have been stated many times in previous surveys, exhibitions, discussions, meeting etc Both mine and my husbands view - simply put they are as follows: 1 - ODP should be recognised and preserved as a conservation area. 2 - ODP should have heritage status 3 - The local gap should be retained 4 - ODP should have a local green space status.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
147
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
297 RG29 1AN Odiham Resident of Parish As a resident I think it vitally important that we protect the land of the former deer park from any form of development by enforcing a policy of the Conservation Area and heritage asset status, together with the importance of retaining Local Gap and Local Green Space status. This is a valuable community asset and any development will be detrimental to Odiham and North Warnborough for generations to come.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
298 RG29 1AN Odiham Resident of Parish As a resident I think it vitally important that we protect the land of the former deer park from any form of development by enforcing a policy of the Conservation Area and heritage asset status, together with the importance of retaining Local Gap and Local Green Space status. This is a valuable community asset and any development will be detrimental to Odiham and North Warnborough for generations to come.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
299 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish Affordable housing for retired people to downsize that compares with the price of their own home. I.e. most of these homes exceed £300,000 which doesn't compare with a modest semi. Something like the present alms houses.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 300 RG29 1HY Odiham Resident of Parish The plan was very sensitive to my views as stated on the form which I submitted .The only matter on which I would like to comment is the Deer Park which in view of its historical connections should be left alone apart from maintenance and not made into a theme park.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
301 RG29 1PP Odiham Resident of Parish I just wanted to say thank you for all the work done so far. I like the proposals in particular the plans for Dunleys Hill community space. Good luck with the rest of the process.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
148
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
302 RG29 1AF Odiham Resident of Parish First of all well done on the detailed plans. As a resident of Odiham for 35 years, what I believe is important to keep the place alive, is to increase the number of affordable houses for those that have grown up here and to increase short term parking for the High Street, yes still more needed; while maintaining the overall environment of the area. All planning applications need to have a higher proportion of affordable houses, in that we have enough large houses in the area. The Montfort site is a reasonable example, although the houses are still expensive. Any saved 'green' spaces need to be accessible to all, otherwise I see little or no reason why they shouldn't be built on. Most are tucked away anyway.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
303 RG29 1LJ Odiham Resident of Parish I believe the Plan overall is well balanced, but there's a danger of being it being overtaken by aggressive applications prior to its formal submission, such as the site next to Archery Fields (11vi), behind Mary Court (11v) and the proposal relating to Deer Park. These are currently designated Local Green Spaces. Also I don't quite understand why the Charles Church Montfort development isn't shown on the plan map! If the planning applications for 11vi and 11v are defeated then I think the Plan is sensible apart from the issue of Deer Park.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
304 RG27 9EB Hook Resident elsewhere I appreciate that additional housing is required within the local area however, we must not forget that the community needs to provide enough sporting facilities for the public to use. Throughout Hart I see that there are planty of facilities for Football and Cricket but other sports are struggliing to find spaces to set up pitches and facilities. Whilst reviewing these plans I also notice that there are some seriously deficiencies in providing new areas for exsisting Clubs to expand or new Clubs to utilise. I'm a founder member of the new Hook and Odiham Rugby Club and we have found it difficult to find a piece of land that we could use for a pitch and in future years a Club House. It's our long term plan to start up a mini section within five years but this will be impossible if we don't have a specific location. To be honest Hook and Odiham needs another sport to offer to the community. Luckily we've been working with Odiham and Greywell Cricket Club and they have kindly agreed that we can train and use their facilities which is great. However, due to space we won't be able to set up a pitch at this site... We have however agreed in principle to to share another area if and when a facility becomes available. I would stress, that as Rugby would be the new sport then a Rugby pitch should take preference at the site which could be utilised by both sports whislt providing some diversity in the recreational environment.
149
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
305 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere First, I would like to congratulate the OnwardPlan Steering Group as they have delivered a remarkable piece of work. As a resident of Greywell it is not appropriate for me to comment on the many interesting aspects of the plan; however, I am writing to record my fullest support of the proposal to create a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell (Policy 3). Whilst additional development is of course necessary to meet future housing needs, I believe this must be done in a way that preserves the distinct character of our beautiful villages. In particular, Greywell is a picturesque small village with a rich history and a valuable SSSI. It would be a tragedy if this special Character was lost; therefore, it is vital that we circumvent the risk of coalescence of our precious settlements by formally establishing a Local Gap.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
306 RG29 1AB Odiham Resident of Parish Having followed the development of the Onward Plan closely, I would like to record my 100% approval of the current Onward Plan. I think the work of the Onward Plan team has been absolutely OUTSTANDING and in particular would like to record my appreciation of the extensive consultations they have made with local residents like me. The presentations of the plan at local venues have been full and clear, with people on hand to explain and clarify further, and they have always requested open feedback. The Plan is so very carefully considered and constitutes an absolutely remarkable step forward in creating a plan which really reflects the views of local residents. I have marked on the prior page the sections of the plan which particularly interest me as an individual, but I fully support the whole plan in its entirety. I specifically hope that both Hart District and Odiham Parish Councils will give full and immediate support to Onward Plan so that we can, at last, have a plan IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE which reflects the views of the community.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
307 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish Policy 3 - We support maintaining the gap between North Warnborough and Greywell, 2 beautifully rural and separate historical villages, preserving the individual character of the conservation areas. In addition, preserving the whole area and views around the castle, as an area of SSSI
150
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
308 RG29 1NH Odiham Resident of Parish I wish to express my support that the land behind Beech Cottage be designated a permanent green space. This land is one of last remaining green spaces in the historical part of Odiham and I feels strongly it should stay this way. We need to preserve this conservation area and keep it free from housing development.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
309 RG29 1AB Odiham Resident of Parish I am most concerned that special interest groups may try to nullify the overwhelming support that has been afforded to maintaining the Deer Park as a Green Space. The proposals put forward by developers would completely alter the environment - in particular siting a large country house in the centre of the park and "domesticating" the rest of it. Like most other residents I am uneasy at the prospect of developments around the village, especially as at the Eastern end, 90 houses are already being built on Hatchwood and another 30 are planned across the road. However, I think the Steering Group has done a good job in interpreting the wishes of the community in siting the development areas around the village.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
310 RG29 1DR North Warnborough Resident of Parish I support the neighbourhood plan as developed by the Onward Team and thank them for their efforts. My key concern is Local Green Space designation and I would wish to see all the candidate sites designated to protect the inherent ambiance of the Odiham and North Warnborough.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
311 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish The design principles and guidelines seem clear and in line with feedback received to-date. The development sites seem to be in line with the guidelines. The plan itself takes a lot of time to understand and digest. (about an hour) I wonder how many people will invest that amount of time? It would be helpful to have had a simple summary of the design principles, the recommended sites with area and no of houses, and critically a clearer map showing the location of the sites in the neighbourhood plan area. I fully support the need for a gap to be recognised between Odiham, North Warnborough and Greywell.
151
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
312 RG29 1FB North Warnborough Resident of Parish First of all I wish to make it clear that I am generally in favour of the Plan in its entirety. It offers a commendably balanced solution to the future development of Odiham and North Warnborough. Specific comments are: Policy 3 - local gaps: I strongly support the retention of as large as possible settlement gaps between Odiham and North Warnborough and North Warnborough and Greywell. Ideally, the current gaps should not be reduced at all. It is vital that the separate character and setting of all three settlements is retained. Policy 12 - Natural Environment: Whilst I share the ambition for greater public access to our local countryside and the River Whitewater I am deeply concerned at the damage that will occur with the increased footfall, dogs and as far as the river is concerned, the erosion of vulnerable banks and the degradation of bankside and river habitats through increased human activity and dogs. Infrastructure Aims: I do not feel that the Plan adequately addresses the ever increasing through traffic on Hook Road North Warnborough or the Street in North Warnborough.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
313 RG29 1BY Greywell Resident elsewhere I strongly support Policy 3, the maintenance of the gap between North Warnborough and Greywell in order to keep Greywell's character as a countryside village. Any additional housing on this site would exacerbate the traffic in Deptford Lane which is already a busy rat run with the majority of cars speeding which causes danger to children waiting to picked up by the school bus as well as continued erosion of both banks in that lane.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 314 RG29 1PH Odiham Resident of Parish I think an attempt should be made to get the Deer Park designated a village green.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
315 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere Re policy 3, I wholeheartedly support the proposed creation of a local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. I believe that this is vital to preserve the natural environment and stop the coalescence of North Warnborough and Greywell. There are also important views to protect, including those of King John's Castle and
152
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
the North Warnborough conservation area.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 316 RG29 1DB Greywell Resident elsewhere Dear Sir/Madam, I'm writing as a resident of Greywell to register my views on the following: 1. That I strongly support Policy 3, the creation of a Local Gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. 2. This land gap is a notably beautiful and important part of the local landscape that must be preserved for future generations as well as being a special site of scientific interest. 2. As part of the above it is vital that the integral character of Greywell is preserved as a small and historic village and that under no circumstances is this to be lost through the over development of Odiham. 3. Categorically that the coalescence of settlements must be avoided at all costs and should never be permitted. I hope these views will be fully considered and accepted as part of the consultation. Kind Regards,
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result 317 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere In relation to local gaps I think it is imperative for the different characters of Greywell and North Warnborough to be kept separate through the maintenance of an agricultural space between the two communities. Without Policy 3, the distinct character of Greywell would be lost and the SSI's of Odiham Castle and the beauty of the Basingstoke Canal would be irrevocably damaged. Greywell is a unique place to live, a small yet vibrant community and without a policy in pace to prevent the coalescence of neighboring settlements, there is a risk that its character would be subsumed and the Grewellian essence dissipated forever.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
318 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I wish to support the preservation of a local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell and am most keen that the nothing is done to perturb the SSSI designation and its associated wildlife or the rich appeal of the countryside and settings afforded by Odiham Castle / The Basingstoke canal and the River Whitewater.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
153
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
319 RG29 1BS Greywell Resident elsewhere I am very keen to endorse Policy 3 in order to keep the existing local gap between North Warnborough and Greywell. Our local villages have wonderful individual character which would be ruined if the local gaps were to disappear, not to mention the detrimental effect this could have on the beauty of the district and SSSi sites. I live in Greywell, which, despite being small in size, has lots of historic buildings and attracts many visitors who enjoy the unspoilt nature of the village. I cannot stress highly enough the detrimental impact it would have on the district if the local gaps were to disappear. Please ensure that the individual settlements are maintained by keeping the local gaps. Thank you.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
320 RG29 1NJ Odiham Resident of Parish The LGS designation of land behind Beech Cottage does not meet the Plan's own criteria.
Response: Checked for Submission and NPPF criteria were applied for proposed LGS sites 321 RG29 1AN Odiham Resident of Parish At the Odiham Parish Council meeting on 15th September it was decided by a majority vote that the Deer Park would be put forward to be designated as a Local Green Space within the NH Plan. LGS spaces are supposed to be akin to Green Belt status and should therefore be protected from development. Protecting the Deer Park ranked highly in the January and May surveys conducted for the Neighbourhood Plan and its designation as an LGS should mean exactly that a local green space protected from development in any form.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
322 RG29 1DU Odiham Resident of Parish Perfect act of Nimbyism. Most preferred development seems to be around Dunleys Hill and NorthWarborough. With the Deer Park development, which sadly the parish council are supporting, our property is now in danger of losing value. The relevance of a gap on Dunleys Hill is just an area for litter and maintenance. The OPC struggles enough to maintain the facilities it has. Affordable housing is a bit of myth as prices will be still beyond most young people.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
154
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
323 BA1 7HL Batheaston Landowner or I am writing to support the site adjacent to Crownfields on the basis that this site will have a minimal impact on Representative the necessary separation between the historic settlements of Odiham, North Warnbouough , Greywell and RAF Odiham . The Crownfields site offers not only a high proportion of affordable housing but also potential for the necessary expansion of Crownfields pre-school and a potential site for a high dependency care home. The location of the site , directly adjacent to an existing and established housing development makes sense where the necessary infrastructure already exists, thus minimising disruption elsewhere . This in particular makes this site relatively a green choice for a green field site . Part of this proposal offers the peripheral benefit of providing a safe footpath link between the school and the houses opposite RAF Odiham, thereby offering a safer alternative to school children accessing Robert Mays school than the existing footpath beside the busy Alton Road. . The Crownfields site will still leave a very significant margin between Odiham and the hamlet of houses opposite the entrance to RAF Odiham and should not offer any significant adverse visual impact to the historic centre of Odiham itself . By positioning the development low down on the hill and restricting the height to two stories , the long views out of the site , and therefore the long views into the site, will be limited. The location of this proposal would also offer the space for significant landscape screening on the site periphery . Finally , the proposal to locate a significant number of houses on a discrete site would, in my view be better than the gradual infilling of secluded open spaces between existing houses which if allowed to continue will erode Odiham's ambience as a low density small historic country town.
Response: See report from Consultant
324 RG29 1BH North Warnborough Resident of Parish I am against the new proposal for the Deer Park. The houses are much too large and should not be built on land that has been used by the residents of Odiham and North Warnborough for generations. The enclosed space for the deer is not a deer park it is a deer farm. I strongly object to this development.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
325 RG29 1HJ Odiham Resident of Parish I believe that this plan is probably the best proposal that could be achieved while recognising the pain to those directly affected by new building including ourselves. Well done to those involved. Having walked the sites since the last round of comments I would strongly support the need for new development adjacent to Crownfields being at similar contour levels to prevent the existing buildings being dominated by new developments. I would strongly encourage the village plot of the final page (and maybe elsewhere in the plan) to include the 89 house approved development at Hatchwood as it will provide a more balanced perspective of new development spread across both E&W Odiham and N.Warnborough.
155
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
326 RG29 1AS Odiham Resident of Parish My comments relate to the development of the Deer Park. I have been to the meetings and heard the opinions of the Developers and those who oppose development. Whilst I think they have a strong case to develop based upon the 'gifting' of community buildings or monies and land to the parish which would absolutely be of benefit, I have reflected and ultimately disagree with the proposal. My reasons follow: The land was purchased by the owner as land which cannot be developed - period. Why does this not apply any longer? The Parish should not be blinded by the merest glint of gold and bought off by developers. Almost everything is for sale for the right price but this should not be the case when our local countryside and green space is at stake as more and more land is being built on around Odiham. Although the land is called the deer park, it has not officially been one for over 300 years, why add more deer that the Developers stated in their presentation would need culling to control the population at a certain level. (Is this simply euphemism for the wealthy owners of the country lodges to indulge in shooting parties with their chums?) There are already deer in these fields down to the canal, I regularly photograph them, their small population self maintaining. The extension of the parking by the surgery is surely not required, the existing parking is rarely even half full most of the time today. Businesses may benefit with a few solvent new homeowners but I cant see how this will bring significant fiscal improvement vs the more sizable additional population coming to the David Wilson estate by Farnham road. I concede I may not be well enough informed as I am not a business owner. With development comes restriction and regulation. Today the land is open and the views are unobstructed. The land is a safe place for children and teenagers to walk between friends homes in Odiham and North Warnborough It is a great place for walkers and dog owners and the loss of the use of the land would mean more areas where it is possible to walk in open land in the parish. The new constructed landscape will mean it ultimately simply an upmarket housing estate and no longer a local green space
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result. 327 RG29 1AJ Odiham Resident of Parish I object to further housing development.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
156
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
328 RG29 1PF Odiham Resident of Parish I do not agree at all with the proposals for the Crownfields site.....there are better and more practical places for such a site, closer to the dual carriage ways....refer please to your original proposal map. To have such a site with access proposed via the Alton rd , is badly thought through. This is a very busy road , already congested during key times of the day.....and this will only make the situation not only worse , but potentially dangerous. Even with a two storey proposed care home design, this will still restrict and considerably spoil the existing view...... a most unacceptable proposal in its entirety. 2. The problem of parking within Odiham high st. appears to have been ignored /dismissed. The limited additional space behind the new Co.op has not helped or changed the dynamics of the problem....and anyway, this space is essentially for the use of shoppers at the Co.op! The plan refers constantly to the objective of increasing new customers and visitors to the High St, which of course in principle is a good thing, however if adequate parking is not provided this objective will fail or at the very least create havoc. Also the additional homes already being built at the very end of the High st, as well as the new proposed building will only increase the existing parking problem...... the Steering Group for the Plan need to look at this again, as a high priority please.....and practical solutions sought and moved forward. 3. I fully agree that a additional pedestrian crossing be made available at the top of Dunleys Hill. The existing crossing near the old Crown Restaurant is satisfactory, however many people, including school children do not cross here....but tend to cross where road leads into the High St., this is where an additional crossing needs to be located. There was unfortunately a fatal accident at this spot last year and this additional crossing should be viewed as a priority. I would also suggest a crossing be placed further down the High St, I would fully support the proposal to have a 20 mph speed restriction along the High St. This was implemented very successfully in the Street , North Warnborough, and with many elderly people using the High St, as well as school children etc , I consider this will add real value to all. It would also assist the parking problem, as currently vehicles are forced to reverse into the High st. to leave the designated parking spaces and this manoeuvre will be a lot easier with a reduced speed limit in force. Thank you.
Response: Comments noted regarding Crownfields site, Parking and Traffic. Sections reviewed for submission plan 329 RG29 1PH Odiham Resident of Parish In the introduction to the pre-submission plan it talks of "an AREA of the Deer Park" being designated as a LGS. I am not happy with this weasel phrase, which seems to leave the possibility that large parts of the Park will not be protected. The rural nature of the Park - as it is now - would be lost by development both for housing and a managed landscape. It would become like any other large city park or the manicured outdoor space of some stately home It will be urban rather than rural and, far from the public having open access as now , they will be herded into a small area and such paths as will be left (the latter having hedges - so no long distance views). I therefore suggest that the whole of the Deer Park be put forward to be designated as a LGS
157
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Consultation Statement Appendix 5 - Summary of Pre-Submission responses See Appendix 6 for the report from the Consultant and Appendix 7 for the report by the ONWNP Steering Group
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
330 RG29 1BB North Warnborough Resident of Parish All Green Spaces mentioned are vitally important to our Parish, especially the Deer Park. They are what makes this wonderful village special.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
331 RG29 1HF North Warnborough Resident of Parish I do not want to see any green field development in Odiham whatsoever.
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
332 RG29 1PQ Odiham Resident of Parish The development of this historical village should be kept to the minimum in order to retain its historical roots and values
Response: Comments noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
333 RG29 1NZ Odiham Resident of Parish I am confused as to why the Crownfields site is still marked as being planned for development when it received the most number of objections. Why have the local residents and their very many valid points not been heard?
Response: Comment noted, no direct changes made to the draft Plan as a result
158
ODIHAM AND NORTH WARNBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: CONSULTATION STATEMENT JULY 2016 Appendix 6 – RCOH Regulation 14 Report
ODIHAM & NORTH WARNBOROUGH PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
REGULATION 14 REPORT: DECEMBER 2015
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to summarise the outcome of the consultation period on the Pre Submission Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan (ONWNP) held during October and November 2015. The report makes some recommendations on how the ONWNP should proceed in the light of representations made.
2. The report will be published by Odiham Parish Council (OPC) and it will be appended to the Consultation Statement that will accompany the submitted ONWNP in due course, in line with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.
3. During the consultation period there were many representations made by local people, by the statutory consultees developers/landowners and by other local and interested organisations. The responses from the local community have been reviewed and analysed by the ONWNP Steering Group and its summary of those responses is reported separately.
4. This report therefore summarises those representations made by the statutory consultees, developers/landowners and other interested organisations in relation to the extent to which the proposed land use policies meet the basic conditions as required by the Regulations. Details of the full representations made will be included in the Consultation Statement in due course.
Consultation Analysis
5. The local planning authority – Hart District Council (HDC) – has provided officer comments. OPC has been in regular dialogue with HDC during the preparation of the ONWNP. HDC has raised issues on some of the proposed policies and has made a number of suggestions on how the final document may be improved:
Policy 1 – recommend identifying Hatchwood Place and Archery Fields sites within the settlement boundary as they have planning consent; query the windfall ‘allowance’ evidence Policy 2 – add references to SAMM requirements as appropriate; revise site concept plans to better reflect surface water flooding potential Policy 4 – remove the affordable housing requirements as they are not consistent with the HDC Allocations Policy or strategic policy of the Local Plan; consider a policy on Rural Exception Sites Policy 9 – notes there is a discrepancy between the plan evidence base and that of the 2014 Local Plan study data; notes also recent changes to permitted development rights Policy 10 – concerned that the policy may be too restrictive on future education needs
159 Appendix 6 – RCOH Regulation 14 Report
Policy 11 – should accept that Archery Fields has consent and should be deleted from the policy Policy 12 – suggested wording improvements
6. Hampshire County Council has commented on a number of policies. Although it has raised no objections, it has requested modifications to Policy 2 iv (Albion Yard) in respect of its provision for a new car park to serve the castle and to Policy 8 in respect of tree management in the Canal Conservation Area. It has also suggested some minor changes to Policy 12 and to the infrastructure projects in Section 5, including requesting that the ONP identifies its idea for a Canal Hub at Colts Hill as a future project.
7. Historic England has made a number of comments on the clarity of the wording of policies 2 – 6. It has raised no objections to the site allocations of Policy 2 but suggests that the wording of each allocation affecting a Conservation Area is more precise about the specific nature of the Area to which future proposals must have regard. It has endorsed the proposal to designate the Deer Park as a Local Green Space in Policy 11.
8. Natural England has commented that the Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment is compliant with the regulations in respect of demonstrating there are no likely significant effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. However, it continues to regard the scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment to be too narrow and it requires that the final report assess the effects of the ONWNP policies on a wider range of environmental issues, including a larger number of SSSIs within and adjoining the parish boundary.
9. The Environment Agency has commented on the proposed land allocation at Hook Road in Policy 2(vi) and advises that the policy should require proposals to have regard to the presence of watercourses on the land and to provide a 5m buffer zone from the top of the bank.
10. Thames Water has requested that a new policy on sewerage infrastructure is added and has requested that additional supporting text be added to Policy 12(iv) in respect of developer responsibilities for provide for drainage. In respect of specific site allocation proposals, it has concerns only with Policy 2(i) at Albion Yard, for which there is insufficient wastewater network capacity to support a new housing scheme without upgrades to the drainage infrastructure. This can be achieved but the policy should refer to this issue.
11. The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Trust has made a general comment requesting that the plan vision and objectives are clearer about protecting and enhancing biodiversity. It has expressed concern about the justification of the full housing potential in respect of effects on the SSSIs and other biodiversity assets in the parish. And it disagrees with the proposal to require a public car park at Albion Yard, given the likely effects of increased activity on the adjoining Warnborough Greens SSSI. Finally, it has requested that the allocation policies seek developer contributions to the management of existing nature conservation sites.
160 Appendix 6 – RCOH Regulation 14 Report
12. The Basingstoke Canal Society has commented in respect of wanting Policy 3 to be more specific about preventing negative effects on the Canal in the North Warnborough/Greywell Local Gap. It has also made suggestions for minor changes to Policy 8 on the Canal.
13. Bryan Jezeph Consultancy has objected to the site assessment conclusions and to Policy 1 capping housing development with its settlement boundaries.
14. Bell Cornwell Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at Crownfields and supports the allocation and general principles of Policy 2(vii). However, it requires changes to the policy wording to bring it in to line with the wording of the other site allocations in respect of housing capacity and to the reference to maximum building height. Bell Cornwell also separately made objections on behalf of the owner of land at the Deer Park in respect of its inclusion as a Local Green Space in Policy 11. And it has made objections on behalf of another owner of land adjoining the northern boundary of the settlement of Odiham and to the east of North Warnborough in respect of Policy 3 - Local Gaps and Policy 11.
15. Woolley & Wallis Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at Hockleys Farm and objects to the proposed designation of the land as a Local Green Space in Policy 11 (iii).
16. Vail Williams Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at Hook Road and supports its allocation and some of the principles of Policy 2(vi). However, it considers the ONWNP premature in coming forward ahead of the new Local Plan and objects to the indicative site capacity and some other principles.
17. Macallan Penfold Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at land rear of Crumplins Yard and whilst supporting its allocation in Policy 2 (iii), it objects to some of the policy details.
18. Lightwood Property Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at land rear of Beech Cottage, Kings Street and objects to its proposed designation as a Local Green Space in Policy 11(vi).
19. JB Planning Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at Dunley’s Hill (Policy 2(v)) and supports its allocation and that of the adjoining Local Gap (Policy 3) and Local Green Space (Policy 11(ii)). However, it objects to the ranking order of allocated sites in para 3.15 of the supporting text to Policy 1. And it has suggested changes to Policy 4 in respect of the affordable housing element reflecting site viability.
20. Turley Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at Close Meadow and objects to its proposed designation as a Local Green Space in Policy 11(i) and to its exclusion as a housing allocation in Policy 2.
161 Appendix 6 – RCOH Regulation 14 Report
21. Genesis Town Planning Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at Archery Fields and notes that the site now has planning consent and cannot therefore be designated a Local Green Space (Policy 11(v)).
22. Barton Willmore Ltd has commented on behalf of the land interest at Deptford Lane, North Warnborough and objects to the exclusion of the land as an allocation in Policy 2 and to the proposed designation of the North Warnborough – Greywell Local Gap of Policy 3, within which the land is located.
23. Cala Homes has commented on its land interest at Adams Farm, North Warnborough, which was assessed for potential allocation but not included in Policy 2. It objects to this exclusion and the assessment grounds for doing so, and considers the ONWNP premature in respect of it coming forward before the new Local Plan.
24. It is further noted that the majority of those objecting to either the exclusion of land from an allocation in Policy 2 and/or the proposed designation of land as a Local Green Space in Policy 11 have also objected to Policy 1 on the basis that it does not provide for sufficient housing land to meet the needs of the district in the forthcoming Local Plan.
Modifying the Submission Plan
25. The representations summarised above raise a series of issues that are not unexpected for a neighbourhood plan seeking to establish a firm spatial plan and to make land allocations in accordance with that plan, but without the benefit of an up-to-date Local Plan strategic policy framework. Indeed, many have commented, mistakenly, that the ONWNP is premature and must wait for the Local Plan to be adopted.
26. During the consultation period, HDC published two documents for consultation in relation to its new Local Plan. Both the ‘Refined Housing Options’ and ‘New Homes Sites Booklet’ documents offer helpful insights to guide the completion of the ONWNP. It is known and accepted that the ONWNP cannot depend on their contents for its justification but nor is it bound to agree with their non-strategic elements, for example the site assessments in the Booklet. Assuming the ONWNP proceeds to examination shortly it will be examined against the policies of the adopted 2006 Local Plan. But, the direction in which HDC proposes to take in providing for its future housing needs is becoming clearer in respect of that part of the district lying beyond the 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.
27. Although the new Local Plan has not reached its Regulation 18 stage yet, let alone been tested at examination, it is clear that HDC considers that this rural part of the district is only capable of accommodating approximately 300 new homes as a sustainable pattern of development. As result, it has assumed that this number is fixed and therefore common to all the spatial options it is consulting on to deliver the level of housing growth. In which case, the number is far less likely to change than other parts of the district as the
162 Appendix 6 – RCOH Regulation 14 Report
Local Plan proceeds, no matter what decisions are made by HDC on its housing distribution strategy.
28. In that context, Policy 1 seems more than reasonable in making a valuable contribution to that number, given that on the one hand, Odiham and North Warnborough are the largest of the settlements in the area beyond the buffer zone and not as isolated as other parts. But on the other, they are both significantly constrained by a combination of national heritage, biodiversity and flood risk designations, as the respective statutory consultees have made clear in their representations. The New Homes Sites Booklet identifies the theoretic potential of the parish to deliver 264 more homes (primarily at the Deptford Lane site) than the total 160 homes estimated capacity of the sites that have been allocated in Policy 2 (excluding 80 homes that have already been consented for the plan period). The Booklet also identifies 115 new homes capacity on sites outside the parish at Long Sutton, 87 homes west of Hook and 79 homes at South Warnborough. There is therefore the potential for this area beyond the buffer zone and outside the parish to deliver sites that will help meet or exceed the 300 homes emerging target for the area. Even so the contribution from this parish of new homes as result of the positive housing strategy of Policy 1 and deliverable allocations of Policy 2, together with ‘windfall’ sites, make it likely that the ONWNP will contribute at least 75% of the target of 300 extra new homes identified in the Booklet for the area beyond the buffer zone. There appears no need for the ONWNP or the Local Plan to allocate any additional sites within the parish, nor for planning applications of any non-allocated sites to be consented to meet local housing needs.
29. Although some on the Steering Group had been concerned that the ONWNP may have allocated too many sites, these new Local Plan documents provide a clearer direction that its current provisions will anticipate well the emerging Local Plan policy framework. There is therefore no need for a review of site allocations for the ONWNP to be submitted for that purpose.
30. Objectors have also sought to show the housing allocation site selection process was flawed and/or that the ranking order was inaccurate. This is also a common criticism, as there is little understanding or acceptance of land interests of the importance of neighbourhood plans needing to reflect the local community perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of collections of sites. The process used here has been transparent, consistent and accurately reflects the majority community view, as highlighted by the positive feedback received from local people. That said, it may be helpful to review the site assessment report and text in the plan document to ensure that the process has been as well explained as possible.
31. In respect of those responses that have agreed with the allocations of Policy 2 but have objected to the development principles, the opportunity should be taken to review the principles to see if their comments are valid. In some cases, land interests will have had access to site information that has not been seen by the plan makers and this may mean there needs to be some minor modifications.
163 Appendix 6 – RCOH Regulation 14 Report
32. The other main cause of objections is Policy 11 – the Local Green Space designations. Given the consequences of such a designation, and that it is intended to remove the perceived or actual threat of unsustainable development, it is not surprising that most land interests have objected. In one case (Archery Fields), the designation has been overtaken by events and it should be deleted. Nor can objections be made on the grounds that a designation is only being sought for land threatened with development. Para 76 of the NPPF states that, “local communities should be able to identify for special protection green areas … to rule out new development”. In respect of other objections, it is not sufficient for a land interest to object on the grounds that the land is not publically accessible or that they simply disagree with the proposal as a landowner. However, it is a reminder that the case made for all designations should be as robust as possible in relation to the tests of para 77 of the NPPF. The Steering Group should therefore review its assessment report to ensure that its evidence base is able to counter the objections received for those sites it wishes to retain in Policy 11. The wording of the supporting text should also make it clear that only the criteria of para 77 have been used to justify the proposals.
33. The objections relating to the designation of Local Gaps in Policy 3 are disagreed with. The designation and definition of local gaps, as opposed to strategic gaps, falls within the scope of non-strategic policy making of neighbourhood plans. They provide an effective means of shaping local patterns of development when proposed alongside positively-made site allocations to reflect a clear spatial plan, as in this case. In which case, the decisions of HDC on the future of local gaps in its new Local Plan are not relevant.
34. There have been some requests for additional policies, e.g. Thames Water, but they are not required for the ONWNP to meet the basic conditions and are, in any event, better dealt with by existing and future national and district- wide planning policies.
35. In respect of the Natural England criticisms of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, some minor modifications can be made to improve the clarity of the assessment. This should include a clearer statement about any likely effects of development on the SSSIs within the parish, as suggested. However, it appears mistaken on the ability of the Parish Council to define the scope of the assessment to that which is proportionate to the task in hand. Widening the scope of the assessment to include matters such as air and soil quality will add nothing to the analysis of the policies or of any reasonable alternative policy options. At this local scale, it is almost impossible to detect any meaningful and measureable differences between alternatives. The scope has therefore focused on those objectives for which some degree of helpful analysis is possible and it is recommended that this matter is discussed further with Natural England.
36. In summary, the following minor modifications are recommended for the Submission ONWNP:
164 Appendix 6 – RCOH Regulation 14 Report
Policy 1 – amend the settlement boundary as suggested by HDC and update the supporting text to reflect the new Local Plan documents Policy 2 – retain all the allocations but review the details, especially at Hook Road, Crumplins Yard and at Crownfields; reconsider car parking requirement at Albion Yard; consider greater specificity on Conservation Area considerations for relevant sites; Policy 3 – retain the local gaps as defined Policy 4 – bring the affordable housing element in to line with the District policy Policy 5 - minor modifications to the policy and supporting text wording Policy 6 - minor modifications to the policy and supporting text wording Policy 7 - minor modifications to the policy and supporting text wording Policy 8 - minor modifications to the policy and supporting text wording Policy 9 – review the evidence base and HDC data to amend any discrepancies in the policy and/or supporting text Policy 10 – no changes Policy 11 – delete site (v) and review evidence for the remaining sites Policy 12 – minor modifications to the policy and supporting text wording Policy 13 – no changes Policies Map & Insets – minor modifications as necessary
37. Some comments have also been made on the non-statutory section 4 of the document. The Steering Group is not obliged to amend this section as it will not form part of the examination but it may be minded to address points raised in finalising its contents.
Recommendations
38. It is recommended that:
The policies and supporting text are changed with only minor modifications as described above There are no other sites allocated The ONWNP is finalised for submission for examination, subject to the completion of its Basic Conditions Statement, Consultation Statement and the necessary amendments of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Site Assessment and the Local Green Space evidence base reports.
165 APPENDIX 7 – NPSG Regulation 14 Report Summary of Pre-Submission responses
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report by the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan (ONWNP) Steering Group is to summarise the outcome of the minimum 6 week consultation period on the Pre-Submission Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan, held during October and November 2015. This report makes recommendations on how the ONWNP should be amended before submission with appropriate changes included in the light of representations made.
2. This report will be published by Odiham Parish Council (OPC) and appended to the Submission Plan Consultation Statement that will accompany the submitted ONWNP in due course, in line with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.
3. During the 6 week consultation period there were many representations made by local people in addition to statutory consultees, developers/landowners and by other local and interested organisations. The responses from statutory consultees and developers/landowners have been reviewed and analysed by the rCOH consultant who has been advising the ONWNP Steering Group on the development of the ONWNP, and are reported separately.
4. This report provides a summary of the recommendation for making relevant changes to the Pre-Submission plan to reflect representations by residents, businesses and other local stakeholders in relation to the extent to which the proposed land use policies will meet the basic conditions, as required by regulations applying to the development of a Neighbourhood Plan. Details of these representations made in the regulatory consultation period will be referenced in the Consultation Statement as a related appendix.
Consultation Analysis
Policy 1 Comments included that there should be recognition of the recent development at Hatchwood (Montfort Place) and the land South of the Farnham Road (east of Archery Fields) as both have planning consent from Hart. As a result the settlement boundaries on the Submission Plan Policy map will need to be reviewed and amended appropriately. Policy 2 Concerns from some residents were expressed on risk of flooding which Hart also raised in their feedback. Revisions to policy wording and site concept plans will need to be made to more effectively mitigate the risks from potential surface water flooding. Policy 3 There were many comments that included support for the Local Gaps proposed in this policy. The policy maps in the Pre-submission plan will be amended accordingly. Policy 4 Although there were comments made relating to affordable housing requirements, the Submission plan needs to be consistent with the Hart District Council Policy of the Local Plan, with its policy on Rural Exception Sites. The plan will need to be amended in the light of this guidance from Hart District Council. Policies 5, 6, 7 and 8 There were relatively few residents’ comments made on any of these policies. Policy 9 Resident comments generally supported the policy. Policy 10 There was general support for this policy. Policy 11 There were many comments from residents that included support for Local Green Space (LGS) areas both generally and on specific proposals. A number of
166 APPENDIX 7 – NPSG Regulation 14 Report Summary of Pre-Submission responses residents had pointed out that the land South of the Farnham Road (east of Archery Fields) had been granted outline planning consent by Hart DC for up to 35 dwellings and should be removed as a potential LGS area and Hart also expressed this view. The plan will be amended accordingly to remove this site for potential LGS designation. The remaining 6 areas of land proposed for potential LGS designation will remain in the plan for submission and consideration by the examiner. Policy 12 Some resident comments expressed concern on the risk of flooding generally and also in some cases specifically on sites selected in the plan for new development. Appropriate changes to the plan will be made to seek to mitigate the risks of future development from potential surface water and flooding. Policy 13 There were very few residents’ comments on this policy but the plan wording will be reviewed with minor changes incorporated if appropriate.
5. In line with the advice from rCOH (the consultant on the plan) we believe that the representations summarised above are not unexpected for a neighbourhood plan such as ours seeking to establish a firm spatial plan for the parish and to make site allocations in the Submission plan.
6. Although there had been some comments on specific ONWNP site selections it is important that the emerging plan reflects views expressed by the community. The process used in developing the ONWNP has been transparent, consistent and accurately reflects the majority community view, as highlighted by the positive feedback received from local people.
7. In respect of resident responses that agreed with the site allocations of Policy 2 but had raised concern as to how the sites are developed, the opportunity will be taken to review development principles with appropriate modifications made to the Plan before submission.
8. Some comments were made on the non-statutory Section 4 of the Pre-submission plan and, where appropriate, modifications will be made to plan wording before submission.
9. Policies Map and Insets – appropriate modifications will be made before submission.
Summary of Recommendations
The plan policies and supporting text should be reviewed and changed with minor modifications where appropriate. No selected sites for new housing development will be removed nor any other sites be identified.
167