Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary

Okeford Fitzpaine Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan Committee March 2017

1 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Contents 1. Why we have produced this summary ...... 3 2. The Consultation Stages ...... 4 Raising Awareness ...... 5 Project Definition ...... 5 Preliminary Consultation ...... 5 Pre Submission Consultation ...... 5 3. Main Issues Identified- Residents ...... 7 List of Residents Who Responded ...... 12 4. Main Issues Raised- Organisations ...... 13 Issues Raised ...... 13 5. Main Issues Raised- Developers ...... 18 Issues Raised ...... 18 Appendix 1- Detailed feedback from Residents ...... 20 Appendix 2 - Feedback from North Dorset District Council ...... 35

2 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

1. Why we have produced this summary This is a record of the consultation that has been carried out, and how it helped us prepare the neighbourhood plan. It also forms part of the evidence based for the examination of the plan, before it can be adopted. The Neighbourhood Planning Regulations require that, when a neighbourhood plan is submitted for examination, a statement should also be submitted setting out the details of those consulted, how they were consulted, the main issues and concerns that people raised, and how these concerns and issues have been considered and where relevant addressed in the proposed plan.

3 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

2. The Consultation Stages

In preparing the neighbourhood plan we had a number of consultation stages. These are summarised below.

Raising Awareness An open meeting in September 2014 to launch the plan, present the vision and scope, and invite participation. Issue of a questionnaire in January 2015 to gather qualitative information about parishioners and how the parish could be improved. A feedback event for all parishioners in the village hall to present the findings from the 150+ questionnaires returned. Parish council hosted presentations from consultants with their initial proposals for housing developments at parish council meetings. Project Definition Following parish council elections in May 2015 the Neighbourhood Plan was relaunched in July 2015 with a project plan published on the parish website. Preliminary Consultation The period ran from September 2015 until January 2016. The aim was to engage with the entire community, ensure they were fully aware of the importance of the final Plan on the future of the community going forward until 2031 and that this was an opportunity for everyone to have a chance to influence how development and other issues in their community would be shaped in the coming years. Events included: A public presentation of proposed housing developments in the village hall in September 2015. Quantitative survey of parishioner’s views on how many houses should be built, and views on how S106 money should be spent. Neighbourhood Champions delivered and collected questionnaires. A feedback event based on the 300 questionnaires in January 2016 Pre Submission Consultation Production of the 1st version of the Okeford Fitzpaine neighbourhood Plan, known as the Regulation 14 Consultation version . From September 2016 a 6 week consultation with the public at “Mud Pie Café”, Royal Oak pub, and the Recreation Ground in Okeford Fitzpaine. Summary sent to all parishioners via the Blackmore Vale Magazine. Social media used to inform parishioners. The aim was to share the latest draft of the Plan, tease out any final views on the policies within the Plan and seek feedback from statutory consultees which would be considered and incorporated into the final Plan as necessary. 4 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Raising Awareness In September 2014 Okeford Fitzpaine Parish Council launched the development of the Neighbourhood Plan. Parishioners were invited to participate in its development. In January 2015 questionnaires were posted to every household in the parish and counted to include all those over 18 using the electoral roll. 150 questionnaires were returned. The questionnaires gathered information about how the parish could be improved. A feedback event was held in the village hall displaying the quantitative and qualitative responses from parishioners. Potential developers were also present at this meeting, showing potential housing development plans to parishioners. During 2015, the parish council hosted presentations on potential developments at their monthly meetings which are open to the public to attend.

Project Definition Following council elections in May 2015 a new parish council was formed in Okeford Fitzpaine. The Neighbourhood Plan was relaunched in July 2015 with the development of a formal project plan including the scope and the establishment of the Neighbourhood Plan Working Group. Parishioners were invited to join the project through a number of defined roles. These included environmental assessment and review, historical review, and business review. One expression of interest was received. The project plan was published on the parish council website and updates were given at subsequent parish council meetings.

Preliminary Consultation The period ran from September 2015 until January 2016. The aim was to engage with the entire community, ensure they were fully aware of the importance of the final Plan on the future of the community going forward until 2031 and that this was an opportunity for everyone to have a chance to influence how development and other issues in their community would be shaped in the coming years. In September 2015 there was an open public presentation of potential developers which was attended by approximately 60 people. Parishioners were given an opportunity to get involved in the development of the plans.

A questionnaire was distributed to all households in the parish by neighbourhood champions who each took responsibility for a street or specific area during October and November 2015. These questionnaires focused on the number of houses that should be built, where, and what type, and also asked for views on how the Section 106 funding should be spent.

In January 2016 there was a feedback event in the village hall, displaying the results of the survey.

Pre Submission Consultation The pre submission consultation took place over a six week period in September 2016. Parishioners were updated using briefings distributed in the Blackmore Vale Magazine, and by social media. Where parishioners did not have a delivery of the Blackmore Vale Magazine, notices of the consultation were hand delivered to their homes. 5 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Displays and informal drop in sessions were held at Mud Pie Café in the village hall, at the Royal Oak pub, and at the Recreation ground. Hard copies of the full plan were kept in the village shop, the Royal Oak and were available at the drop-in sessions.

Key local organisations were also invited to respond. The OFNP was sent to NDDC who were responsible for sending the Plan to a list of Public Bodies on our behalf. As well as advising these public bodies of the proposed plans, several of them were specifically requested to comment on the Plan and its impact on the environment e.g. Environment Agency, Historic England, Natural England and the AONB Team, DCC Environment and Economy. Technically this is known a requesting a Screening Opinion, and is used to determine whether the Parish needs to conduct a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) as part of the neighbourhood planning process.

6 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

3. Main Issues Identified- Residents The table below highlights the main issues raised by parishioners. Several very detailed and constructive responses were received which helped inform development of the revised plan. Questionnaires have been retained for future reference. In addition, a petition concerning safe parking at Okeford Fitzpaine School was received. This had been signed by 41 people.

ISSUE WHAT WE DID……. Number of houses Concern was raised about the number of houses and the process used to arrive at this number. There were also one or two concerns the number was insufficient. A standard method of calculation using homes per hectare was used. Inconsistency with the This has been redrawn as part of the consultation process and revised Settlement Plan plan. Safe road/ path and car Whilst these concerns are acknowledged, this was not in scope as part of park behind the school the neighbourhood plan. Challenges about the A sustainability based standardised scoring system developed by a method used to analyse the consultancy, based on the approach used in other areas was applied to housing, and potential the prioritisation of sites. Where a member of the project team was conflicts of interest affected by a particular site they withdrew from that part of the process. Flood impact assessments Dorset County Council and Environment Agency databases had been accessed in the preparation of the OFNP. These determined the risk from fluvial flooding and ensured that proposed sites were not on flood plains of the Stour and its tributaries. Pluvial flooding was also considered, and again databases accessed and local knowledge taken into consideration. While there were no specific issues with the proposed sites, the vulnerability to pluvial flooding was a factor in Policy HP3 which requires that Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDs) be incorporated into future site developments. SuDs and their ongoing maintenance ensure that the run off from a new development is no greater than its greenfield equivalent. This has been documented in the OFNP Stategic Environment Assessment Screening Opinion and Habitats Regulations Report. Detailed assessments of the infrastructure supporting a specific development are made in the Detailed Planning Application (see HP3) Traffic assessments This is not within the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan. NPPF requires that a Traffic Plan is for development sites at the Planning Application stage. This was confirmed in a meeting with DCC Highways. However, the headline figure of 5-6 additional traffic movements per day for each new dwelling has been taken into consideration in the revision of the OFNP and the resultant preferred sites. Speeding in the village This is not within the scope of the neighbourhood plan. Preference over Chicken This outcome occurred as a result of a Consultancy led site selection Farm development as a process where the Consultants ECA designed , led, moderated and priority in the parish survey documented the site selection process using a standard means of and the Pleydells assessment based on NPPF and NDLP Part 1. Since the consultation and development in the in particular, feedback from North Dorset District Council the suitability

7 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6 consultation document of available sites has been revised. The team have been advised by NDDC that the input from parishioners is based on opinion, which while this is a vitally important element of neighbourhood planning needs to be moderated by evidence from other sources. Density of houses in This is acknowledged and can be reflected back to developers. Future development sites development sites are planned at no more than 35 dwellings per hectare (dph), which is towards the bottom of the range of dph that has been used in recent years for rural development. Old Dairy has 50 dph. Questions as to why Castle This site did not score as highly as others using a sustainability based Farm had not been selected prioritisation tool (see above). as a priority for development Justification for moving The movement of footpaths is a costly activity, and will be avoided footpaths where possible in the revised OFNP. However, this will be done where it makes a development site viable, by producing a sustainable safe and secure pedestrian and wheelchair access to the centre of the village where the key amenities of the village can be found. Vague heritage policy This is being further developed for the second version of the neighbourhood plan. A separate document - OFNP SEA Screening Opinion and Habitats Regulations Report has been produced which focuses on the environmental (including Heritage Assests) impact of the Plan. In addition a Heritage Assets Report has been produced, which will specify the impact of the revised site selection on our heritage. Questions over why The NPPF gives guidance on sustainable development which is the greenfield could not be ‘golden thread’ running through this guidance. In its Core Planning developed. Principles it encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. It doesn’t say that greenfield cannot be developed (Green Belt is another matter), as is shown in the revised OFNP, where this provides the most sustainable outcome. We were fortunate that the most sustainable site (Old Dairy) was also classified as a ‘brownfield’ site. Types of housing- request This feedback will be passed to developers. It is in any case determined for more social housing by the demand for social housing for rent from the NDDC Housing Register. The current NDLP Part 1 policy is that 40% of of dwellings in a new development should be in the ‘Affordable Homes’ category which includes Social Housing for Rent. Old Dairy has 40% Affordable Housing, including several Social Rental. Types of housing- more This feedback will be passed to developers and has already been bungalows,1, 2-3 bed included in policy HP2 homes Concerns over the This is within the AONB and will be managed in accordance with the development at Back Lane NDLP Part 1 policies for development within the AONB. The single and potential for more detached dwelling that has been built is on land that has been recorded development on the NDDC SHLAA for a number of years. The single dwelling has replaced previous planning applications for multiple dwellings. Drainage concerns in and See above re SuDs and flood risk. The physical drain capacity is not around the village within the scope of Neighbourhood Planning and is dealt with at the Detailed Planning Application stage.

8 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Need solutions to parking Parking arrangements are being included with development plans. The OFNP is in conformance with the NDLP Part 1, and goes beyond this by seeking additional parking places in proposed developments. Selecting the most sustainable sites, which support pedestrian access to village services mitigates the restricted village centre parking capacity. The Parish Council encourages pedestrian access to the village centre wherever possible, especially where parents are able to walk to the school with their children. Concerns that widening of This has been reflected in the revised neighbourhood plan. Shillingstone Lane will cause further hazards General need to review The road infrastructure is reviewed when the Traffic Plan is produced for road infrastructure a new development. The Traffic Plan examines the impact of the development on the local road systems. Question as to why This has been reflected in the revised neighbourhood plan, and Shillingstone Lane is explained fully in the Frequently Asked Questions on the OFNP website. preferred for widening when the majority voted for Castle lane The exit for the Faccenda This has been reflected in the revised neighbourhood plan, and chicken farm development explained fully in the FAQs on the OFNP website i.e. under NDLP Local needs to be at Ridouts and Plan 2003 saved policies, OF1 (road connection from the Faccenda not Shillingstone Lane Chicken Farm to Castle Lane) was based on the site being an employment site with the Chicken Factory moving to this location and thus moving heavy goods vehicles out of the centre of the village. The policy OF1 preceded the development of Ridouts, was not specific as to its entry point to Castle Lane, and was never intended to go through Ridouts. Mixed support for Little The support in the Q4 15 Parishioner Survey showed over 70% of Lane; however there is repondents were in favour of investment in the Little Lane link to the concern an impact Trailway. The OFNP policy IP1 refers to the need to resolve the assessment and the dangerous crossing of the A357. Motorised access is legal according to crossing with the A357 the classification of Little Lane. The evidence is in favour of this needs to be considered. infrastructure investment. Also legal issues with motorised access. Need to include horse Horses have been included in the Little Lane development riders with Little Lane Feeling that Darknoll Lane Agreed. is an inappropriate route for development to the Trailway. Questions whether The list of organisations consulted as part of this consultation process is Shillingstone Parish Council in this document. It includes Shillingstone Parish Council. has been consulted. Concern about using This has been reflected in the revised plan. section 106 money to widen Shillingstone Lane

9 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Access to Section 106 There are regulations as to the types of projects suitable for Section 106 monies- should be an open money. This includes prioritising what may be needed within a process for deserving community as opposed to a deserving cause. In the case of the S106 causes. monies from Old Dairy, the agreement for the development stipulated that the money had to be spent on leisure and/or recreational amenities. Sustainability of the church This is not within the scope of the neighbourhood plan, it is a matter for in the longer term the Church of England through the Okeford Benefice. Sustainability of shop not The shop is a private business and its business model is not within the necessarily dependent on scope of the Neighbourhood Plan. The current business owners of the more houses or younger shop are supportive of further growth in the village population. people Need to include Fiddleford This has been included in the revised plan. Inn School needs to be rebuilt This is not within the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan. Provision was to the east of Castle Lane made in Dorset Planning for an additional wing to the new primary school in Shillingstone, should there be a decision to close the Okeford Fitzpaine school. Self-interests within the Each parish councillor signs a declaration of interests as part of the role parish council and issues requirement which is publicly available from North Dorset District over potential conflict of Council. Where potential issues emerged such as the scoring of sites, the interest councillors affected withdrew from that part of the process. Sewage system flows west This is not within the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan to east so any development should be on the east side of the village No environmental policy There are 2 Environmental Policies in the revised OFNP. EP1 confirms that we will follow the national law and guidance on environmental matters e.g. NDLP Part 1. EP2 deals with the mitigation required by each new development in balancing increasing urbanisation with new ecological measures. In addition the OFNP SEA Screening Opinion and Habitats Regulations Report examines the impact of the Plan on the environment, and makes recommendations on the requirement for a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA). This process is a legal requirement. Potential light pollution risk The OFNP and any recommendations for new developments will be in to new developments conformance with the NDLP Part 1 policies on light pollution. The risk will be fully examined at the Detailed Planning Application stage. Need for light industrial The Faccenda Chicken Farm site and the Wessex Park Homes both have units in the parish Employment status. However to date, neither owners have brought forward a proposal for an employment development. Policy EN1 states ‘The conversion of barns and redundant farm buildings for business and tourist related uses only, will be supported. Suitable uses include holiday-lets, office, light industrial (B1) and live-work units.’ Church and school not Both Okeford Fitzpaine School and St Andrews Church were included in consulted about the plans the consultation. Nothing mentioned about A focus of the 1st two development sites is the replacement of an old preserving the increasingly derelict chicken processing factory or similarly old derelict attractiveness of the village farm buildings by housing developments that are in keeping with the Conservation Area. This should lead to an improved attractiveness to the 10 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

village and an enhanced Conservation Area. Why did the project team The project team took the approach set out in the guidance on focus solely on Neighbourhood Planning from central government and also reviewed development the approach taken by other parish councils in developing their neighbourhood plans. Need an employment As the OFNP Working Party is a small team we have always sought to use assessment existing evidence. In this case the Sturminster Newton Neighbourhood Plan evidence showed that unemployment in the area is low (at less than 2%), and that this is a relatively low wage area. General road safety in the While road safety is outside the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan, the village Parish Council will seek opportunities for improvements to road safety as part of any new development at the detailed planning application stage. Need to enhance This is the planned use of the Section 106 funds available to the Parish recreational facilities and Council from the Old Dairy development, and this will be continued with other assets community funding from future developments. Access to primary care The GP practices at Blandford Forum which includes Child Okeford and Sturminster Newton were included in the consultation. Dorset CCG was also contacted. No response was received. A further request for advice by Councillor Rowe has received a response from Dorset CCG and she will be sending the revised version of the neighbourhood plan to the CCG. The concerns of the parishioners relating to primary care were also included in a response to the Dorset Clinical Services Review. Need to look at viability of This was not in the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan school Need to improve internet There is ongoing work with the installation of a phone mast in the and mobile access church. High speed broadband has already reached the village. Why were only parish Opportunities were made available through advertisments (notice councillors members of the boards, Blackmore Vale magazine fliers, on-line via the website and project team facebook) asking parishioners to get involved with the development of the neighbourhood plan. There was minimal response to the adverts. Plan not accessible to those Printed copies were available at open events, in the Royal Oak, and the without computers Village Shop. It was not cost effective or financially viable to provide a full printed copy for each household. Housing needs has only This is incorrect. The Eastern Dorset Strategic Housing Market concerned those within the Assessment was a main input to the Housing Needs Analysis. This looks parish and not those on the at all aspects of the future housing market across the area, including housing register who may North Dorset. wish to come to Okeford Fitzpaine Concerns about timescale The plan has been revised to reflect feedback from parishioners, North as a revision is needed Dorset District Council, and other stakeholders. The timeline has been refreshed in line with this revision.

11 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

List of Residents Who Responded Mr and Mrs P Allingham A Atherton G Bentley R Bentley W Abbott Beresford J Berry I Berry ME Bolton H Bolton T Bowles P Burt M Clay R Clay S Mr & Mrs P Congdon Crichton I Crichton W Crichton W Drake MR Durrant J Faraday L Faraday S Finklaire P Finklaire S Gartside D Gartside J Graham D Hall L Hall J James E James R Jay H Jay C Jay A Jay SM LeRiche S Light F Mogridge M Newell J Newell P Roberts PA Roberts R Sale D Sale M Saunders M Trowbridge B Turner C Vickers A Vickers C Wirdnam P Wirdnam P Wood E Wood Martin Wood Michael Wood MJ

12 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

4. Main Issues Raised- Organisations The following organisations were invited to respond to the Neighbourhood Plan

RESPONSE MAIN CONSULTEES RESPONSE LOCAL ORGANISATIONS Yes North Dorset District Council Yes Child Okeford Parish Council Yes Dorset County Council No Durweston Parish Council Yes Environment Agency No Hanford Parish meeting Yes Historic England Yes Sturminster Newton Town Council SEA only Natural England Shillingstone Parish Council AONB Team No Manston and Hammoon Parish Council No Highways England No Stourpaine Parish Council Yes Dorset County Council- Dorset Yes Broad Oak Resident’s Association Highways No Scottish and Southern Energy No Turnworth Parish Meeting No Southern Gas Networks No Child Okeford Surgery No Wessex Water No Whitecliff Mill Medical Centre No Sturminster Newton Surgery No Okeford Fitzpaine School No St Andrews Church, Okeford Fitzpaine

Issues Raised

ORGANISATION MAIN ISSUES SUMMARISED WHAT WE DID Dorset County Generally supportive of the plan. A Local Greenspace Report has Council DCC object to the designation of the been produced which removes proposed policy CP3 which includes a the school playing field from designation of the school playing field as LGS status. The contents of the Local Greenspace. The area in question LGS Report have been is currently school playing fields. This summarised in the revised could have a detrimental effect should OFNP. the school wish to develop later. Need to contact DERC re environmental The SEA Screening and and wildlife issues, and develop into Habitats Regulations Report plan. has examined the impact of There is an area to the northern tip of the revised OFNP on the the NHP boundary which conflicts with a environment. An additional safeguarded mineral, as designated in environmental policy EP2 the Minerals Strategy, adopted May addresses the mitigation of the 2014. impact of increasing urbanisation on the environment. Policy IM1(- 1) Appears to conflict with The DCC Minerals Strategy has Policy IP1 been used as a source for

13 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

IP1 indicates that the widening of evidence that the sterilisation Shillingstone Lane is contingent on the of proven mineral resources redevelopment of the Faccenda Chicken will not occur as a result of the Farm however IM1 identifies the same proposed developments. scheme as a CIL / s106 priority. Need to Policy IM1 has been be reworded if this is a prerequisite of withdrawn in the revised OFNP development. North Dorset District Very detailed feedback. See appendix 2. This has been reflected in the Council Issues with some terminology to be revised OFNP. Each of the reflected in next draft. points has been considered Need to state that a MINIMUM of 825 and it is intended that the houses is required in the North Dorset revised OFNP is in countryside. conformance with these NDDC EU obligations include human rights. comments. Explanation needed on why settlement boundary changed Clarity required on conservation area Evidence required over selection of local green spaces Clarification required on local greenfield land. Calculation of housing need- commended. No need to suggest 37 houses needed- refer to plans for minimum of 825 in the countryside. Pleydells Farm and the former Faccenda Chicken Farm do not meet the NPPF definition of previously developed land. As set out in the definition quoted at the bottom of page 15, land that is or has been occupied by agricultural buildings is excluded. The definition of agriculture in planning law can be found here: Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Faccenda Chicken Farm is allocated for employment use by retained 2003 Local Plan Policy OF1 and reference needs to be made to this fact. Whilst the allocation can be reviewed through the neighbourhood plan it will need to be demonstrated that the site is no longer required for employment. As with IOWAs (comment 9), the status of the site as an employment allocation would be retained until it can be deleted through the local plan review, however its re-designation under the neighbourhood plan would take precedence. The written annotation on the plan in Appendix 11 is difficult to read. 14 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Information regarding diverting a path can be found at: Public Path Orders - diverting or removing a path - dorsetforyou.com.

If the creation of the new footpath to the village centre is a pre-requisite of the development then this raises questions regarding the deliverability of the site. So, if the site and the land that the footpath crosses are in separate ownerships, has the agreement of the landowner to the west of the site been obtained? In addition, there is potential for the construction of the pedestrian footpath impacting upon biodiversity interests present along its route and this will need to be assessed. It is suggested that the Dorset Police Architectural Liaison Officer be consulted on the principle of providing the footpath in terms of security.

Sites 2 and 4 are not brownfield

The limit on infill development is overly restrictive and a maximum figure should not be used in this policy. Instead it should state that infill development is acceptable within the settlement boundary subject to detailed considerations in respect of character and amenity. Assessment details of each of the other sites considered for comparison with selected sites? As referred to under comment 15, neither Pleydells Farm nor the former chicken farm are previously developed land as defined by the NPPF. It will therefore be particularly important to provide the evidence that supports the allocation of these two sites over the other greenfield sites.

Broad Oak Residents Do not support. The Okeford Fitzpaine Parish Association Angers Lane needs to be improved so Council has sympathy for the that the lorries and heavy goods vehicles residents of Broad Oak as the that currently go to and from the issues they face are exactly the Fiddleford Mushroom Farm no longer go same as the residents of through Broad Oak. The current level of Okeford Fitzpaine that live traffic is unsustainable, causing damage adjacent to the 4 main access 15 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

to the road surface, road edge and roads and Castle Lane in banks throughout the village. The noise particular. However, we will be and disruption to the residents is equally constrained to the road unsustainable, regularly testing local improvements that result from people's good nature and generosity of the Traffic Plans that result spirit. from new developments. The It is extraordinary that the plan does not type of road improvement that mention Fiddleford Mushroom Farm. is suggested to be made to The farm has grown considerably over Angers Lane is outside of the the years and a level of control on its scope of a Neighbourhood growth needs to be set. We realise that Plan (as is the case for a for Okeford Fitzpaine there is no traffic suggested Sturminster Newton or noise impact or any disruption, by-pass). Angers Lane is because it at the far end of the parish, ‘Unsuitable for Heavy but this does not remove your Vehicles’, being single lane for responsibility to control the size of this most of its route. An upgrade farm. would require significant land acquisition and a scale of investment beyond the resources of a small rural parish. The Fiddleford Mushroom Farm is an established legitimate business which the Parish Council has no means to control the scale of its legal operations. Historic England Need more detail on the historic and This is being done as part of heritage aspects of the parish to ensure the revised OFNP. The SEA they are protected in future. Screening and Habitats Regulations Report and the Heritage Assets Report are intended to provide the detail on the heritage impact assessment being sought by Historic England Sturminster Newton Do not support in current format. See above – response to Broad Town Council Wish to collaborate over economic Oak Residents Association. plans, including tourism developments. Expressed concerns over the impact of Fiddleford Mushroom Farm and potential expansion. Particularly the road access to Fiddleford Mushroom Farm and the need to address the congestion issues for residents. Dorset Highways Sustainable urban drainage systems This has been fully adopted in need to be incorporated with each Policy HP3 development, and the policy should also include their future maintenance. Okeford Fitzpaine has low permeability The permeability of local soil soil. has been a factor in the site 16 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Drainage from fields on Castle Lane, selection in the revised OFNP, Shillingstone Lane will cause ponding. along with the policy on SuDs. No modelled risk of flooding from sites DCC and Environment Agency chosen for development, although Flood Risk models have been potential risk to Shillingstone Lane from used in the production of the Poultry House development. revised OFNP and supporting May need to be further work within the evidence, mainly in the plan on flood risk. additional work in the SEA Screening Report. The Poultry Farm is no longer a proposed site.

17 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

5. Main Issues Raised- Developers As part of the neighbourhood plan development and consultation the project team met with key potential developers. This comprised:

- Consultation with each of Pleydells Farm/Wessex Park Homes /Faccenda Chicken Farm landowner and or promoter/developer in May 16. This was to understand how their thoughts and proposals had progressed. - An Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Call for Sites in May 16 which elicited 3 additional sites - Futher consultation as in 1 above but this time to advise on the result of the AECOM HNA and the proposed content of the draft OFNP prior to the 1st Reg 14 Consultation - North Dorset District Council Call for Sites Q4 15, which resulted in Land to the North of Okeford Fitzpaine being actively promoted

There have also been meetings with NDDC Planning (Anne Goldsmith) in Dec 15 and Dec 16. Other communication has been restricted to email and telephone conversation, because of the demands on her time from the production of Local Plan review documents, and support to other NPs e.g. Shillingstone and Sturminster Newton.

Issues Raised

ORGANISATION MAIN ISSUES RAISED WHAT WE DID Pleydells Farm Agree with plan and housing allocation (27 This is reflected in the revised (completed by Houses). OFNP agent) Support the housing mix required.

Lone Star- Mr Supports plan The Castle Farm site ( as per the Keith Fenwick Requests that Castle Farm land is NDDC SHLAA) was included in the considered for development as a site selection process. subsequent development of the Faccenda Chicken Farm.

Wessex Park Plan not supported Homes- Mr Adam Bennett for Ken Disagrees with the AECOM HNA The Planning Team and NDDC Parke Planning Methodology – suggests a minimum of have chosen to accept the Consultants 225 houses findings of the AECOM HNA. States that Faccenda and Pleydells are not This is reflected in the revised developments on brownfield land. This OFNP makes the prioritisation process flawed. Challenges the policy that only brownfield sites should be developed first. This The Plan reflects the choice of means Wessex Park Homes is the only sites based upon their brownfield site. sustainability. The re-use of brownfield sites as per the NPPF has been reflected in the revised OFNP 18 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

The OFNP does not seek to allocate any sites for employment purposes The revised OFNP retains the status of the WPH and Faccenda Chicken Farm sites as purely employment sites. Historic England has not been consulted. Incorrect see 8.2 Historic England

Development of Pleydells will impact Disagree. The development of conservation in the village. Pleydells will remove old, unsightly and increasingly derelict farm building of no historic interest from the vicinity of the Conservation Area, and other listed buildings in Lower Street.

Disagree. Little Lane will provide a Inappropriate to develop Little Lane. key addition to local Pound Lane would provide better access. infrastructure to provide sustainable direct access to the North Dorset Trailway

Housing needs within the The plan for Shillingstone has not Shillingstone Neighbourhood delivered the recommended 185 dwellings Area is not relevant to the and therefore there is a shortfall of 147 housing needs within the Okeford homes needed for this village in addition Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Area to the shortfall in Okeford Fitzpaine.

Disagrees with site selection methodology Site Selection methodology and conclusions designed, developed, moderated and documented by independent Town Planning Consultants ECA

19 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Appendix 1- Detailed feedback from Residents

QUESTION YES NO NO RESPONSE Does the plan identify the most important aspects of 18 33 3 changes in the way we will use our land that will improve and sustain Okeford Fitzpaine as a community? Overall, do you support the Okeford Fitzpaine 18 35 2 Neighbourhood Plan?

SECTION COMMENTS FROM SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES RESPONSE RAISED HP1 Numbers Abbotts, Bentley Housing need could be met The housing numbers of houses solely with the development are based on the in the village centre, making independent AECOM the chicken farm HNA using an evidence development unnecessary. based approach to assess local need. This used the East Dorset SHMA and other factual sources to arrive at an objectively based number of dwellings. The Faccenda Chicken farm is not included in the revised OFNP proposals. HP1 Allingham, Boltons, See above, The FAQ Numbers of Crichton. Durrant, Disagreement between also clarified that the Houses Finklaires, Jays, Newells, building 105 houses in the NDLP plan is for a Sales, Woods, Halls, plan and the 40-60 minimum of 825 Berrys, Faraday, Clays, preferred by residents in dwellings in Stalbridge Drake, Wirdnam, Turner the questionnaire. and the LVs, and a Disagreement between the proportionate 37 houses in the North allocation was never Dorset Local Plan and the intended. The 105 in the Okeford Fitzpaine approach to assessing Neighbourhood Plan. housing needs has No impact assessment of been commended by infrastructure issues- road NDDC. NDDC made no network, drainage. adverse comment on the housing numbers. See previous comments re SuDS and 20 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Traffic Plans HP1 Wirdnam, Faraday Inconsistency with the settlement plan and concerns over impact of Wessex Park Homes CP1 Wirdnam Would like to see a map of There is a map of the the conservation area and Conservation Area in the area immediately the Plan , and a outside it as the Faccenda separate map showing Chicken farm impacts this. the development proposals. However as the FCF is not in the proposals for the revised OFNP no further comment is made on this. Le Riche Need clarity over the This is documented process arrived at to decide elsewhere in this numbers of housing report, and in the separate OFNP Site Selection Report document. HP1 Allingham, Bentley, Issue with number of See above, The FAQ Bolton, Congdons, houses and specifically the also clarified that the Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, increase by over 25% in the NDLP plan is for a Newells, Roberts, Vickers, parish which is outside minimum of 825 Woods, Halls, Berrys, North Dorset’s policy dwellings in Stalbridge Faraday, Clays, Drake, and the LVs, and a Wirdnam, Graham, Turner proportionate allocation was never intended. The approach to assessing housing needs has been commended by NDDC. NDDC made no adverse comment on the housing numbers. The housing numbers conform to NDDC Policy and the approach to assessing need has been commended by NDDC. HP1 Burt Plan has insufficient houses recommended to make the village sustainable. HP1 Beresford 3 sites may be enough. But See FAQs about road still a need to have a road and car park. and car park running behind the school HP1- Selection Allingham, Boltons, Questions around the See 7.2 above and 21 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6 process for Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, housing analysis- method, FAQsand NDLP Part 1 possible site Woods, Halls, Berry, independent verification, Countryside Policies development Faraday, Sale, Clays conflicts of interest.

HP1- Site 2 Allingham, Boltons, No traffic or flood impact See OFNP SEA Pleydells farm Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, assessment from this site. Screening Report and Newells, Sales, Woods, No impact assessment on Heritage Assets Report Halls, Berry, Faraday, the conservation area. Clays, Drake HP1- Site 3 Allingham, Boltons, No traffic or flood impact See policy HP1 in the Faccenda Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, assessment from this site. revised OFNP. Chicken Farm Newells, sales, Woods, Concerns over current Halls, Berry, Faraday, flooding in the area. Clays, Drake, Wirdnam

HP1 Saunders Order should be: 1. Infills; 2. See HP1 in the revised Site 1; 3. Site 3 phase 1; 4. OFNP. Site 4 phase 2; 5. Pleydells. Better to develop the chicken farm and widening of Shillingstone lane before Pleydells so traffic flows there instead of castle Lane HP1 Atherton, Burt, Finklaires, Majority of parishioners See HP1 in the revised Newells, Faraday (80%) in survey favoured OFNP. The Faccenda the chicken farm. It would Chicken Farm has been be remis to disregard this. retained as an The Faccenda site would not employment site in increase traffic through the support of NDDC village. policies on the economy Anon 1, Anon 2 Issue over prioritisation of See previous Pleydells over other sites comments regarding Site Selection process. Faraday Justification for rerouting The revised HP1 will existing footpaths avoid the re-routing of footpaths (and the cost of doing so). HP1 Newells, Vickers, Faraday, Density of properties in The Dwellings per Blanco Pleydells and Faccenda is Hectare (DPH) for the too high Faccenda Chicken Factory is 50. The future development sites in HP1 in the revised OFNP have a DPH of 35 to allow for the additional landscaping and ecological measures set out in the revised OFNP. 22 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

HP1 site Allingham, Boltons, Issue over why land at The Land at Castle Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, Castle farm had not been Farm did not score Sales, Woods, Halls, Berry, selected as a priority for highly in the site Clays, Drake development. selection process Beresford Issue of preserving land See previous behind Castle Farm as a comments regarding green field at the expense development in the of safety Countryside. Beresford Heritage policy too vague See Heritage Asset report in support of Heritage policies. HP1 Burt Start chicken farm site See above re the development, open access revised OFNP and via Castle lane, include NDLP Part 1 policies on parking at rear of school development in the Countryside. HP1 Sale Only 55% agreed not See NDLP Part 1 developing greenfield in the policies on NP development in the Countryside. The NPPF policies also lead to the prioritisation of brownfield sites over greenfield. However the remaining brownfield site (WPH) scored poorly against sustainability criteria and has not been taken forward. HP2 Allingham, Boltons, Disagreement with the NP Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, statement: The Parishioner Woods, Berry, Faraday, survey Q4 2015 showed a Sale, Clay, Drake strong preference for young families and newly formed households. Evidence of older people moving into Old Dairy. HP2 Saunders No mention of one See revised OFNP bedroom dwellings as in the Policy HP2 needs assessment. Some residents living in 2-3 bed houses would move to a 1 bed if available. HP 2 CP2 Beresford No real reason to keep land Same comment re behind Castle Farm as it is. NDLP Part 1 Could build a road and car Countryside policies park to the recreation ground Anon 1, Anon 2 Need to build appropriate Policy HP2 provides a homes- sheltered, mix of housing to meet 23 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

bungalows etc.- not the full spectrum of expensive holiday homes needs, and is in conformity with NDLP Part 1. HP2 Vickers, Beresford Shortage of bungalows/ 2/3 See above bed properties Flats HP2 Vickers Is more affordable/ social The 40% affordable housing really necessary? housing proportion Take percentage overall (for developments of instead of development by 10+ dwellings) is in development conformity with NDLP Part 1. HP2 Vickers, Beresford Less house, more In the revised OFNP landscaping future development sites have a DPH of 35. Policies on landscaping and ecological provision have been strengthened. Vickers, berry Concerns over development There are no sites to west of Back lane and (other than that being potential for more housing built on now with a single dwelling) on the SHLAA in this area. Saunders Rented dwellings should be Social Housing for social housing not rental is included in affordable – difference in the definition of terminology Affordable Housing. HP3 Allingham, Bentleys, Drainage concerns in the Policy HP3 and SuDS. Boltons, Durrant, village. And around Mill The revised OFNP does Finklaires, Jays, Newells, Farm area not have a sale, Trowbridge, Woods, development near Mill Halls, Berry, Clays, Farm. Beresford, Drake, Wirdnam HP3 Burt No solutions to parking. Solutions to parking Does not include the plans include additional from the previous council in parking spaces within taking forward parking at the Pleydells Farm the school with developers. development and arrangements to park in pub car park. See revised OFNP and NDLP Part 1 Countryside Policies. Beresford Need adequate size car The revised OFNP parking in new makes provision for developments parking in new developments that exceed the NDLP Part 1 24 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Parking policy. IP1 Abbotts, Allingham, Widening of Shillingstone This policy has been Boltons, Durrant, lane could cause more removed from the Finklaires, Jays, Newells, speeding. OFNP. Roberts, sale, Woods, Problems with narrow Halls, Berry, Faraday, Clay, access at Shillingstone, Drake, Wirdnam, Graham Poplar Hill, Okeford Fitzpaine village. IP1 Vickers How will the road be This policy has been widened when it is removed from the bordered by private revised OFNP. property IP1 Allingham, Boltons. Burt, Majority voted for widening Traffic Plans are Crichton, Durrant, of Castle lane in survey, not produced at the Finklaires, Jays, Roberts, Shillingstone lane. Detailed Planning Woods, Halls, Berry, No mention of widening Application stage. Faraday, Clay, Drake, Castle Lane in plan. Policy IP1 has been Wirdnam, Gartsides Has there been a highways removed from the assessment. revised OFNP. IP1 Vickers If road widening is See above. necessary, long standing residents should not suffer as a consequence of new housing developments IP1 Bentley, Beresford, Light Agree with widening See above. Road Shillingstone Lane; however infrastructure is road infrastructure in reviewed in the Traffic general needs s review. Plans for each new development – including the impact of the development on the existing road infrastructure. IP1 Mogridge, Le Riche, Widening Shillingstone Lane See revised OFNP, and Wirdnam will not solve traffic NDLP Part 1 problems. There needs to Countryside Policies. be an exit from the Faccenda site through Ridouts. IP1 Gartsides Need to be two exits from See revised OFNP Chicken farm development Policy HP1. (Shillingstone Lane and Ridouts) HP1 Allingham, Boltons, Burt, Issues over the parish See revised OFNP Crichton, Durrant, survey which favoured Policy HP1. Finklaires, Jays, Newells, access through Ridouts Woods, Halls, Berry, rather than Shillingstone Mogridge, Sale, Clay, Le Lane. Riche, Drake, Wirdnam, bowles IP1 Bentley, Durrant, Clay Speeding Regrettable outside of 25 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Support for 20 mph the scope of a Neighbourhood Plan. Beresford Speed restriction to 30 mph Outside of scope of a on Shillingstone Lane Neighbourhood Plan. Beresford Issues with scoring matrix- See previous detailed rationale given for comments on Site response Selection process. IP2 Allingham, Road from Faccenda chicken The Faccenda Chicken Removal of Boltons,Durrant, Factory to Castle lane Farm will retain its provision of a Finklaires, Jays, Sale, should not be removed until employment site road to Castle Woods, Halls, Berry, Clays, a traffic assessment has status. The retained Lane Drake been done. policy from the 2003 NDLP is retained until reviewed by Part 2 of the current NDLP (scheduled for production by 2018) IP2 Allingham, Boltons, Query over removal of See above. Congdons existing permission to build a road from the chicken farm to Castle Lane. Light Map drawn to show how This policy has been Shillingstone lane could be removed from the widened revised OFNP IP2 Burt No mandate to do this. This policy has been Most people wanted it in removed from the the plan revised OFNP IP3 Allingham, Boltons, No impact assessment of This is being addressed Link to Durrant, Roberts the viability of the link to by the Little Lane trailway trailway or other options. project team. Issues with crossing at A357 Bowles Darknoll Lane is Agreed. inappropriate access to North Dorset Trailway Blanco, Gartsides Good idea to upgrade Little Agreed. Lane IP3 newell Little lane statement should Not within the scope be worded to read in of a Neighbourhood conjunction with Pleydells Plan and safe route through village and across A357 IP3 Newell, Faraday Need to ensure horse riders Agreed. are included with Little lane IP3 Sale, Legal issues with motorised Yes, by the Little Lane access to Little Lane- has project team. this been considered IP3 Halls Little lane upgrade may The Little Lane project increase the volume of team will consider this. motorised vehicles, making it more hazardous. IP3 Sale, Faraday Has Shillingstone PC been 26 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

consulted about Little Lane IP3 James, Newell Little lane is not within the The Neighbourhood village neighbourhood area. Plan Area is the If plans are accepted, the Okeford Fitzpaine council needs to consider Parish boundary – it is what can be done re the T not a village plan only. junction where Shillingstone Road improvements Lane meets the main road. are outside the scope of a Neighbourhood Plan unless this is a direct bi-product of a housing development. See also earlier comments on Traffic Plans. IP3 Burt Should not use section 106 Little Lane will provide money for this as little lane an important belongs to the county recreational amenity, Council. which section 106 The plan commits to using monies are intended to volunteers to maintain this be spent on. and they may not be able to The OFNP directs the or have insurance Little Lane Project to produce long term plans to ensure the sustainability of this investment. IP3/ IP1 Atherton Redevelopment of Faccenda There are already lends itself to IP3 and IP1 footpath links from the option 2 as proposed village to Little lane for pedestrian circuit could be pedestrians. developed at the same time. IP3 Vickers Agree IP3 Burt (disagree) Only achieved by See the revised OFNP development of site 3 IM1 Allingham, Atherton, If Shillingstone Lane is used This policy has been Implementing Boltons, Burt, Durrant, as the access point to the clarified in the revised the plan Finklaires, Jays, Newells, site after a full assessment OFNP Sale, Woods, Berry, Halls, of options, then section 106 Faraday, Clay, Drake money should not be used to widen the access pint as it should be undertaken as part of the development. Sale Section 106 monies should Not according to the be an open application contract drawn up for process for deserving causes the development of the Faccenda Chicken Factory. Section 106 monies to be spent on recreational amenities 27 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

for the benefit of the Parish. CP3 James Policy requires rewording to No future take into account the developments are developments on Back Lane planned for Back Lane, and there are no sites on the ND SHLAA for future development in this area. S1 Allingham, Boltons, Needs to be a new Changes to the Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, Settlement Plan to include Settlement Boundary Woods, Berry, Faraday, Greenhayes, Rosehill Farm are included on the Clays Paddocks, land to west of OFNP Proposals Map Back Lane, Green areas on and will be part of the Pleydells farm. How will this future Regulation 14 be consulted on to ensure and 15 Consultations. all amendments are included? S1 Burt Development will be The OFNP sets out the needed and infrastructure development planned to meet needs of parish- for the period 2011-31. this policy will prevent that. A new OFNP would be required beyond this date Graham There needs to be a The OFNP retains strengthened and robust existing employment section on encouraging sites, and policy EN1 small business units to the allows for the area. Need to expand the conversion of barns support for small businesses and redundant farm buildings for business and tourist related uses only, will be supported. Suitable uses include holiday- lets, office, light industrial (B1) and live- work units Graham Need more support for Not within the scope residents parking permits of a Neighbourhood within the village. Plan. Turner Church probably not Outside of the scope of sustainable in the future a Neighbourhood Plan. and needs to be considered in line with the numbers of people using it Graham, turner Sustainability of shop not The shop is a private dependent on having 105 business and its houses, younger people as business model is not they may shop elsewhere, within the scope of the especially if of working age Neighbourhood Plan. 28 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

The current business owners of the shop are supportive of further growth in the village population. Turner Need to include the Agreed. Fiddleford Inn S1 Wood Inaccurate settlement Corrected. boundary. Statement on no See revised OFNP and development on greenfield NDLP Part 1 is inaccurate because Countryside policies. parishioners were not asked and needs to be reworded. Issue relates to protecting green space which overrides safety concerns (e.g. school parking) SP1 Crichton, Newell Settlement boundary Corrected. inaccurate SP1 Newell Policy states no greenfield See revised OFNP and development- parish not NDLP Part 1 consulted on this. This may Countryside policies. prevent positive things such as safe drop off for school. SP1 Roberts, Sale, LeRiche Field at back of Castle Farm See revised OFNP and should be used a car park NDLP Part 1 for the school Countryside policies. Trowbridge The school needs to be Outside of the scope of rebuilt and should be built Neighbourhood Plan. to the east of the village as See revised OFNP and this would solve traffic NDLP Part 1 problems. Should have a Countryside policies. new estate on the east side of the village Trowbridge Too many self-interests Each parish councillor from the council within the signs a declaration of neighbourhood plan interests as part of the role requirement which is publicly available from North Dorset District Council. Where potential issues emerged such as the scoring of sites, the councillors affected withdrew from that part of the process. Trowbridge Sewage system flows from Not within the scope west to east. Any of the Neighbourhood development should be on Plan. the east side of the village 29 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

and not through it. CP1 Burt Agree CP2 Burt Agree CP3 Burt Agree CP3 Allingham, Boltons, What status do green This was an error in Durrant, Finklaires, jays, spaces have if the the original OFNP Woods, Berry, Halls, designated land to west of document. Faraday, Clay, Drake back Lane is a development The land at the Village site? Hall has not been Will land in Greenhayes included in Local Green directly adjacent to the Space, and is managed village hall be added to this by the Parish Council list? through the Village Hall Trust. Faraday Environment policy missing See OFNP SEA Screening Opinion Report and additional Environment Policy in the revised OFNP. EP1EP1 Allingham, Boltons, Concerns over drainage See HP3 and SuDS Crichton, Durrant, issues since Old Dairy site Policy.Furthe work will Finklaires, Jays, Roberts, development. Will there be be done at the Woods, Halls, Berry, a full assessment before Detailed Planning Faraday, Clay, Drake further building work? Application stage.

Faraday What constituted ‘due See OFNP SEA diligence’ in this instance? ScreeningOpinion Drainage, traffic assessment Report which is at the required level of detail for the Neighbourhood Plan. Traffic Plans are part of the Detailed Planning Application stage. Allingham, Boltons, Will there be a risk from Not if NDLP Part 1 Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, light pollution from new policies on light Newell, Woods, Halls, developments? pollution are adhered Berry, Faraday, Clay, to. Drake EP1 p36 Burt Maintenance of set aside Income will increase areas will raise costs. with increased Volunteers may be limited properties paying the in what they can do, Parish precept. EP1 Beresford Need light industrial units in The Plan is a Parish the village Plan, also see policy EN1 for light industrial units. The revised OFNP retains the 2 existing sites with employment status. Light industrial units 30 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

are not the only potential source of future employment. IM1 Beresford Current plan is insufficient Outside of the scope of to deal with congestion in a Neighbourhood Plan. the village. Little lane and widening Shillingstone Lane will help but this is not enough Social and Allingham, Boltons, Why were the school and Both school and community Finklaires, Jays, Sale, church not asked for church were consulted infrastructure Woods, Halls, Berry, contributions to plan? on the Plan and no Faraday, Clay, Drake comment was received from either. Newell, Halls, Berry No mention of development Outside of scope of a of church and other facilities neighbourhood Plan, but see the policies IP3, and IM1 Social and Allingham, Newell, Berry Nothing included to A focus of the 1st two community preserve the attractiveness development sites is infrastructure of the village the replacement of an old increasingly derelict chicken processing factory or similarly old derelict farm buildings by housing developments that are in keeping with the Conservation Area. This should lead to an improved attractiveness to the village and an enhanced Conservation Area Social and Allingham, Berry Why did the project team It didn’t, but use of the community concentrate solely on land is the principal infrastructure development? focus of a Neighbourhood Plan. Social and Allingham, Boltons, No employment As the OFNP Working community Durrant, Finklaires, jays, assessment. Party is a small team infrastructure Newell, Halls, Berry, we have always sought Faraday, Sale, Clay, Drake to use existing evidence. In this case the Sturminster Newton Neighbourhood Plan evidence showed that unemployment in the area is low (at less than 2%), and that this is a 31 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

relatively low wage area Social and Allingham, Crichton, Why hasn’t parking and use See revised OFNP and community Finklaires, Jays, Newell, of safe drop off been NDLP Part 1 infrastructure Beresford, Drake included in the plan? Countryside policies.

Social and Boltons, Newell, Faraday, Congestion in the village Not within scope of community Beresford with traffic the Neighbourhood infrastructure Plan Social and Allingham, Beresford Child safety at the school- Not within scope of community crossing area, the Neighbourhood infrastructure Plan Beresford Older people unwilling to Not within scope of cross road to shop due to the Neighbourhood congestion Plan Social and Bolton, Finklaires, jays, Recreation activities and Parish Council has a community Woods, Halls, Berry maximising use of the process underway to infrastructure recreation ground and other determine which community facilities. recreational amenities S106/CIL monies will be spent on. Community Allingham, Bentley, Impact on GP practices, The GP practices at infrastructure Boltons, Crichton, need for doctors surgery Blandford Forum Durrant, Finklaires, Jays, which includes Child Newell, Woods, Halls, Okeford and Berry, sale, Clay, Drake Sturminster Newton were included in the consultation. Dorset CCG was also contacted. No response was received. A further request for advice by Councillor Rowe has received a response from Dorset CCG and will be sending the revised version of the neighbourhood plan to the CCG. The concerns of the parishioners relating to primary care were also included in a response to the Dorset Clinical Services Review. Community Burt, Crichton Plan needs to look at Not within scope of infrastructure viability of school, long term the Neighbourhood needs of parish, what Plan. attracts younger people Housing Policies are intended to meet the 32 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

needs of all age groups. Crichton, Wirdnam, Need for safe path between The is an open item Faraday, village centre and being dealt with by the recreation ground Parish Council. The revised OFNP may be able to help with this as a bi-product of a site development. Crichton Internet and mobile access See previous comments on mobile mast in church and the arrival of high speed broadband in the village. Procedural Allingham, Berry, Faraday, Why were only parish See previous Newell councillors members of the comments about project team? advertising roles and the minimal response to adverts. Procedural Allingham, Berry, Faraday, How did individual team See previous Newell members deal with conflict comments on Parish of interest? Councillor declaration of interests and Site Selection process. Newell Proximity of sites to See above. councillor’s homes and conflict of interest Procedural Allingham, Berry, faraday, There are several very The Regulation 14 Newell controversial proposals in Consultation does the NP- why weren’t these exactly this. matters communicated in written form as the process went on to determine views? Other Burt No real information in the The information in the plan OFNP is that determined by the Neighbourhood Planning guidance. Equality and Burt, Trowbridge Plan not accessible to those Paper copies in the diversity without computers shop and pub. Equality and Burt Plan is not strategic; instead The AECOM HNA is to Diversity it is concerned with the meet local needs. The interests of a small group of NDLP deals with people. strategic matters. Equality and Burt Housing needs has only Incorrect. The AECOM Diversity included the parish and not HNA used a variety of the housing register which evidence including the includes those who want to Eastern Dorset SHMA come to Okeford Fitzpaine. which looks at the 33 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

It would also not include housing needs across younger people outside the the whole Eastern parish who want to move in. Dorset Area. other Crichton Concerns about timescale. Agreed. Needs to be a revised plan and another consultation Clay No development should Not within the scope take place until 20mph of the Neighbourhood restriction is imposed Plan.

34 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Appendix 2 - Feedback from North Dorset District Council

35 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

OKEFORD FITZPAINE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN REGULATION 14 CONSULTATION Comments of North Dorset District Council

NDDC Page Section Ref Para on page Comment Comment / Policy Ref 1 2 & 4 1.2 & 1.3 3rd & table Clarification that the ‘old Faccenda Poultry factory’ and ‘The Old Dairy’ are the same might be useful. respectively 2 9 1.6 2nd Basic conditions ‘b’ and ‘c’ are not relevant to neighbourhood plans, only neighbourhood development orders.

Whilst section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (inserted by Schedule 9, para 7 of the Localism Act 2011 [see page 360 of the Localism Act]) states that Schedule 4B to the principal Act (being the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), which makes provision for the making of neighbourhood development orders, is to apply in relation to neighbourhood plans, such application is subject to modifications set out in section 38C (5) of the P & CP Act. Under criteria (d) of section 38C (5) (see page 363 of the Localism Act) it states that paragraph 8 (of Schedule 4B of the T& CP Act), which lists the basic conditions, is to have effect as if sub-paragraphs (2) (b) and (c) and (3) to (5) were omitted. These are the criteria that relate to listed buildings and conservation areas.

This is confirmed in the Planning Practice Guidance at: The basic conditions that a draft neighbourhood plan or Order must meet if it is to proceed to referendum | Planning Practice Guidance

3 11 1.6.3 Last The North Dorset Development Plan also comprises of additional documents. Please see the Local sentence Development Scheme for details at Local planning policy North Dorset - dorsetforyou.com. It might be beneficial to add a sentence to the effect that the local plan is being reviewed too.

12 2nd Whilst the note to the Inspector on the approach to development in rural areas refers to ‘Most Sustainable Villages’ and ‘Less Sustainable Villages’, the adopted Local Plan Part One (LPP1) does not use this terminology. For clarity and consistency with the Local Plan (the adopted Part One and the future reviewed plan), it is the terminology in LPP1 (see Policy 2) that should be referenced.

3rd The first sentence is incorrect; it is LPP1 that should be referenced, being the adopted plan, not the note to the Inspector. As set out in para 3.49 of LPP1 and36 later in Policy 6, a minimum of 825 (not 826) dwellings are to be provided in the Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

countryside (including Stalbridge and all the District’s villages). The figure of 825, and it is important to stress that this is a minimum figure, is therefore the cumulative minimum number of dwellings to be provided to meet both local and essential rural needs identified at the local level (see pages 33 & 34 and 86), outside of the 4 main towns.

The second sentence should include ‘minimum’ before ‘41’ to reflect at least 825 dwellings are to be provided.

The last sentence should be deleted. This section of the neighbourhood plan is concerned with LPP1 and that document does not identify requirements for individual settlements outside of the four main towns. Also see comment 13 in relation to reference to ‘37’.

4 1.6.4 EU obligations also include human rights requirements.

5 13 1.6.5 2nd & 3rd This section needs to be expanded to reference both Habitats Regulations Assessment requirements and Strategic Environmental Assessment requirements. The formal SEA screening opinion report (see comment 32) can also address HRA. Strategic environmental assessment requirements for neighbourhood plans | Planning Practice Guidance

6 14 2.1 3rd See comment 15 in relation to brownfield sites/pdl.

7 15 S1 The policy would benefit from supporting text explaining the revisions to the settlement boundary and providing a cross- reference to the map of boundary. Consideration could be given to excluding those sites proposed as LGS at the edge of the village from the settlement boundary.

See comment 15 regarding pdl. The second bullet point under the 1st heading does not relate grammatically to the ‘mother’ sentence.

The intention of the policy set out under the 2nd and 3rd headings is understood, however the headings themselves are confusing; are not ‘outside the revised settlement boundary’ and ‘other land’ the same in terms of location in relation to the settlement boundary?

However, the wording of the policy under each of these two headings is contrary to both the NPPF (para 55) and Policy 2 of LPP1 which allow residential development outside of settlement boundaries under exceptional circumstances.

37 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

The plan therefore does not meet the basic conditions in respect of the policy not allowing for such exceptional circumstances.

8 16 2.2 7th The relationship between the first and second sentences is queried. As it is written the paragraph suggests that Section 69 requires the District Council to take into account the existence of the conservation area and that both LPP1 Policy 5 and the NP objectives, policies and principles reflect this. However, the ‘duty’ under Section 69 of the Planning (Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is for the District Council to determine which parts of their area are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance and to designate these as conservation areas. If you need to refer to the Act, then the relevant section in respect of the need for special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area is 72.

9 17/18 2.2 CP3 Heritage Policy CP3 might fit better under the Green Infrastructure section where the designation of LGS are already referred to.

It might help the reader of the plan to include commentary on what LGS is.

5 of the 6 proposed LGS are currently designated as Important Open or Wooded Areas (IOWA) in the local plan. As set out in para 7.135 of LPP1, IOWAs are to be reviewed and this will take place as part of the review of the local plan or through neighbourhood plans. Reference should therefore be made in the supporting text to CP3 to the neighbourhood plan reviewing the IOWAs, in line with the local plan. It is important to note that all areas designated as IOWAs will be retained as such until their status can legally be amended on the adoption of the reviewed local plan. However, where IOWAs have been reviewed through the neighbourhood plan process, on the adoption of the np the outcome of the review at neighbourhood level will take precedence and any IOWAs not retained as such by the neighbourhood plan will no longer be specially protected.

As set out in the NPPF, LGS have to meet certain criteria (see bullet list below for hyperlink). Whilst an existing IOWA can be considered for re-designation as an LGS it must meet the LGS criteria, it cannot be an automatic swap. This is important bearing in mind the 2003 Local Plan Inspector’s comments, as outlined in para 7.135 of LPP1, in respect of reviewing in particular the contribution in visual or amenity terms to public areas. In addition, how, under the same paragraph, reference is made to a robust review of the contribution of a designated site being taken into account in decision-making.

38 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

Evidence should therefore be provided that addresses the following: • How the sites were selected. • How each of the areas meets each of the NPPF criteria needs (see 8. Promoting healthy communities | Planning Practice Guidance), including evidence of community support. • Have the landowners been specifically consulted on the proposals as set out in the PPG (Local Green Space designation | Planning Practice Guidance - Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 37-019-20140306 - Does land need to be in public ownership?)? • Has consideration been given to the need for designation as LGS where a site is already protected by another form designation, e.g. conservation area, curtilage of listed building ? (Local Green Space designation | Planning Practice Guidance - Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 37-011-20140306). • Were other sites considered? If yes, why were they disregarded?

Details for each of the sites, including a map and photograph, could be set out on individual forms and then compiled into a separate document.

10 18 2.2 1st What is meant by ‘designated Greenfield land’? As CP3 designates sites within the settlement boundary as LGS, how does it protect land outside of the settlement?

11 19 2.3 2nd Reference to HP4 is incorrect.

12 20 2.4.1 2nd Policy 6 - see comment 3 regarding distribution of the minimum 825 dwellings.

13 21 2.4.2 Bullet 1 The commissioning of the HNA and the method used to determine a housing need figure is commended.

See comment 3 regarding distribution of the minimum 825 dwellings and use of MSV terminology.

Reference to an allocation of a minimum 37 houses being delivered should be deleted. As set out under comment 3, LPP1 does not identify housing provision figures for individual settlements outside of the 4 main towns and the District Council does not support the division of the minimum 825 on a proportionate (be it household, dwelling or population) basis between Stalbridge and the 18 larger villages. Putting to one side that the minimum 825 is the provision for the countryside as a whole outside of the 4 main towns, the reason that the proportional approach is not supported is that it does not attempt to take into account the individual identified need at the settlements. It also does not allow for the availability of sustainable sites at the settlements to be taken into account. In any event, the housing provision figures in

39 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

LPP1 are based on an earlier SHMA to the 2015 study and neighbourhood plans should be using the most up to date data available. The OF neighbourhood plan is in fact making use of the most up to date data by which has been provided through the HNA and so there is really no need to even suggest that 37 is the number of houses to be allocated.

14 22 2.4.2 Bullet 4 See comment 3 regarding reference to MSVs. The ‘4 key elements of an MSV’ are not recognised. The evidence library for the LPP1 suggests that there were 7 key elements and that an MSV had to have at least 4 of these, but which 4 are not identified. Suggest re-writing in more general terms without reference to MSVs and 4 key elements.

15 22 2.42 1st & 3rd Pleydells Farm and the former Faccenda chicken farm do not meet the NPPF definition of previously developed land. As set out in the definition quoted at the bottom of page 15, land that is or has been occupied by agricultural buildings is excluded. The definition of agriculture in planning law can be found here: Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

16 23 2.4.2 2nd The first sentence is incorrect . LPP1 supports the review of settlement boundaries but does not make reference to modifications being made in order to allow for suitable land to be brought forward for development. Additionally references to MSVs and the number 18 is also incorrect. Should reference be to PPG instead of NPPF?

18 23 2.4.2 3rd See comment 15 regarding pdl.

19 23 2.4.2 5th The Faccenda Chicken Farm is allocated for employment use by retained 2003 Local Plan Policy OF1 and reference needs to be made to this fact. Whilst the allocation can be reviewed through the neighbourhood plan it will need to be demonstrated that the site is no longer required for employment. As with IOWAs (comment 9), the status of the site as an employment allocation would be retained until it can be deleted through the local plan review, however its re- designation under the neighbourhood plan would take precedence.

The written annotation on the plan in Appendix 11 is difficult to read. Information regarding diverting a path can be found at: Public Path Orders - diverting or removing a path - dorsetforyou.com.

20 24 2.4.2 1st ‘Accessibility for all’ test?

21 24 2.4.2 2nd Sites 2 and 4 are not brownfield.

See comment 22 regarding infill limit.

22 25 2.4.2 HP1 The limit on infill development is overly restrictive and a maximum figure should not be used in this policy. Instead it should state that infill development is acceptable within the settlement boundary subject to detailed considerations in respect of character and amenity.

The second phase of Site 3 should not be included in the policy as it is proposing development beyond the plan period. Instead cover this aspect in the supporting text.

23 26 2.4.2 HP2 The policy seems to rule out one bedroom homes which does not appear to reflect the conclusions in the HNA (Table 18) that refer to the need for ‘two-bed or smaller’ homes.

Also, it is possible to design flats in such a way that they appear as a single dwelling. In these circumstances character would not be affected.

24 26 2.4.2 6th ‘Experience within the RSL sector…..’? Include reference to source otherwise it suggests the statement is anecdotal and not based on evidence.

25 27 2.4.2 1st Reference to MSVs.

26 28 2.4.2 HP3 The requirement that a development should not result in any additional on street parking on the highway is not realistically achievable. Even if garaging is provided, residents could use the garage for storage and park on the highway. This element of the policy should be deleted.

The local planning authority has no control over the type of application submitted. As an alternative say that full detailed applications will be encouraged.

41 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

27 28 2.4.2 1st Are the references to ‘conservation area’ intended, HP3 being concerned with the village as a whole?

28 29 HP4 As written, this policy is just a statement. What is the intention of this policy? The implication is that there should be no rural exception sites developed during the plan period. Policies however need to be flexible and should allow for changed circumstances. Current evidence may indeed suggest that there is no need for a rural exception site during the plan period, but evidence gathered further into the plan period might indicate otherwise. Additionally, as set out in comment 7, not to allow exception sites is contrary to the NPPF and LPP1 Policy 2.

29 30 2.5.1 6th Traffic Strategy? Incorrect terminology – see Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking | Planning Practice Guidance 30 31 IP1 Is this deliverable?

31 31/32 2.5.1 IP2 and The requirement for the access road is a criterion of saved Policy OF1, the employment allocation. If the employment supporting allocation is deleted through the review of the local plan, then the requirement for the linked access road will text automatically be removed. The Highway Authority will determine the appropriateness of proposed alternative access arrangements in connection with any form of development of the site. As such, is there a need for policy IP2?

In view of the above, consideration should be given to the need to retain the supporting text. As it is written, however, the following comments are made:

The reference to the 2015 Local Plan should be 2016. 31 4th As previously advised (email from Anne Goldsmith to Paul Banning dated 4-1-16), Policy OF1 was taken into account in consideration of the Ridouts development, the following being an extract from the officer report outlining the County Highways comments.

42 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

32 32 2.6 2nd Whilst in the first sentence it says that no proposals are made in the plan for changes to the bus services it should be noted that a neighbourhood plan cannot in any event require changes to be made; it can only ‘seek’ and ‘encourage’.

33 36 2.7 2nd Please refer to email dated 13-10-16 from Anne Goldsmith to Paul Banning and George Weeks setting out the need for a formal screening report to be prepared in order that the need for an SEA can be properly assessed. Additionally, discussion of SEA at this point in the plan might suggest that the legislation is only concerned with the natural environment.

34 36 2.7 3rd What is the status of the proposal for that part of the Wessex Park Homes site in the AONB to be set aside for a wildlife sanctuary with targeted support for a defined species, and that any development would be contingent on this?

35 36 2.7 EP1 Powers of the ‘Parish’ to ‘enforce’ environmental policies? Also see comment …

36 37 2.8 4 Evidence in support of these conclusions? Reference to the saved employment allocation OF1 and consideration as to why it is being proposed to re-allocate it for residential?

37 38 2.8 EP1 Inevitably, policy titles will be shortened to EP1, IP2, etc. It is noted that the shortened versions for this and the natural environment policy are the same which, unless changed, will be confusing.

43 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

38 38 2.8 Last Is the estimate referred to that of the developer or Parish Council? If it is the latter then it might be construed that the sentence principle of mixed use development on this site, to include residential, is supported by the neighbourhood plan. It is noted, however, that there are several issues to be resolved before this section of the plan is completed.

39 41 2.10 IM1 There seems to be confusion regarding CIL and S.106. This is a complicated area and the District Council will advise further if requested.

40 42 2.12 Whilst appreciating that the plan is work in progress, please be aware of the requirements for a ‘consultation statement’ under regulation 15 (The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012). Advice on writing it is available at:http://www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.org.uk/storage/resources/documents/How_to_write_a_consultation_stateme nt.pdf

41 43 2.12 1st The timescale for the progress of the plan towards adoption is unrealistic and in particular does not take account of statutory time periods. The matter of whether an SEA, and HRA, is required will also need to be resolved before the plan can be submitted for examination.

42 50 Appendix 6 1.3 Reference to Policy MM3 is incorrect; MM3 is the main modification from the examination of the local plan. The policy reference is Policy 2: Core Spatial Strategy.

43 50 Appendix 6 1.4 As above, MM5 should read ‘6’. Also, comment 3 is relevant in respect of the distribution of the minimum 825 dwellings. The District Council does not support the crude calculation of 825 by 19 to give a figure for the minimum number of dwellings to be provided, not least because 825 is the minimum figure for the whole of the area outside of the four main towns.

44 51 Appendix 6 1.8 Call for sites?

45 52 - 59 Appendix 6 Assessment details of each of the other sites considered for comparison with selected sites? As referred to under comment 15, neither Pleydells Farm nor the former chicken farm are previously developed land as defined by the NPPF. It will therefore be particularly important to provide the evidence that supports the allocation of these two sites over the other greenfield sites.

46 65 - 91 Appendix 10 Needs to be revised in line with previous comments, including reflecting the situation for Okeford Fitzpaine and the future

44 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6

determination by NDDC regarding SEA (not SA as referred to in parts) and not a neighbourhood plan in the Borough of Poole.

45 Okeford Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Summary Version 1.6