Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2017–2033
CONSULTATION STATEMENT February 2017
A local child’s interpretation of Longwick village’s character today, drawn during one of the consultation workshops
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2017–2033
CONSULTATION STATEMENT February 2017
Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Designation of Neighbourhood Plan area ...... 4 1.2 Consultation Strategy...... 5 2 The Plan Preparation Process ...... 5 2.1 Background to the Plan Preparation ...... 6 2.2 Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group ...... 7 3 Initial Community & Business Engagement ...... 7 4 The Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan ...... 8 5 Responses to the Consultation Questionnaire ...... 9 6 Representations Received ...... 12 7 Summary of Responses & Amendments...... 12 8 The Revised Neighbourhood Plan Process...... 13 9 New Site Selection Criteria...... 14 9.1 The Strategy for the Revised Plan ...... 16 9.2 Infrastructure Capacity ...... 17 10 Conclusion ...... 18 11 Appendices ...... 19
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2017–2033
CONSULTATION STATEMENT
1 Introduction This Consultation Statement supports the Submission Neighbourhood Plan and Sustainability Appraisal in accordance with the Community Engagement Statement and Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) regulations 2012. It contains the following: a) Details of people and organisations consulted about the proposed Neighbourhood Plan b) Details of how they were consulted c) A summary of the main issues and concerns raised through the consultation process, and d) Descriptions of how these issues and concerns have been considered and addressed in the Submission Neighbourhood Plan.
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (Localism Act 2011) require a Consultation Statement to set out the consultations undertaken for the Neighbourhood Plan. In accordance with these Regulations and the local planning authority’s guidance on consultation, the preparation of the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan has involved residents, businesses and other organisations with an interest in the Parish in the preparatory stages for the Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council has worked closely with Wycombe District Council (WDC) in the preparation of the Plan at all stages.
Recent guidance from Department for Communities and Local Government (10 Sept 2013) states that: ‘the consultation statement submitted with the draft Neighbourhood Plan should reveal the quality and effectiveness of the consultation that has informed the Plan proposals.’
This Statement sets out details of events and consultations. It lists the activities in which the local community has been involved and the ongoing work of volunteers. The aim of the consultations in Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish has been to ensure that there is as widespread as possible an understanding of the reasons for preparing and the content of the Neighbourhood Plan. This Statement demonstrates that there has been extensive community engagement which has kept the community informed of the process, progress and content of the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan, and with the opportunities to shape it.
1.1 Designation of Neighbourhood Plan area The Parish Council made an application for the designation of the Neighbourhood Plan area. The application contained: A map which identified the area to which the area application related; A statement explaining why this area was considered appropriate to be designated as a Neighbourhood Plan area; and A statement that the organisation making the application was a relevant body for the purposes of section 61G of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. Designation of the Plan area was approved by Wycombe District Council on 2 March 2015, the application and letter of confirmation are attached at Appendix A.
The Parish comprises 566 homes, and the majority - 438 homes - are in Longwick village. 1.2 Consultation Strategy The agreed aims of the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan consultation process were: To involve as many people in the community as possible throughout all consultation stages of the Plan’s development, so that it was informed by the views of local people and other stakeholders from the start; To ensure that consultation events took place at critical points in the process where decisions needed to be made or views canvassed; To engage with as wide a range of people as possible, using a variety of approaches, communication and consultation techniques; To make the notes from the Steering Group meetings available on the Parish Council website; and To ensure that results of consultation were fed back to local people as soon as possible after the consultation events.
2 The Plan Preparation Process The Plan preparation process has been led by Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council, with decisions delegated to its Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. It has compiled the local evidence base, engaged with the local community, tested the suitability and acceptability of its emerging policies and proposals, and sought support for the proposals.
The process of preparing and seeking final adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan is in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan (General) Regulations 2012 and has been agreed by Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council. The intention of the Parish Council is to submit the Submission Neighbourhood Plan with a view to the Plan being determined as being in general conformity with the existing Development Plan documents and therefore ready for Examination.
The process up to Submission has comprised a number of key stages: Collection of baseline evidence and public consultation as part of the Longwick Village Capacity Study, undertaken by Wycombe District Council and its consultants Tibbalds (October 2014); Agreement of the need to prepare a neighbourhood plan by Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council at a public meeting (January 2015); Formation of the Steering Group (February 2015), see Appendix B for Terms of Reference); Consultation with residents, businesses and other stakeholders on the Longwick Village Capacity Study findings and other issues to include in the Neighbourhood Plan (January- June 2015) by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group; Statutory consultation on the Consultation Draft Plan residents, businesses and other stakeholders (8 June – 21 July 2015) by the Parish Council and consultants TDRC Ltd; Preparation of the Submission Neighbourhood Plan and Sustainability Appraisal and subsequent consultation (Autumn 2015); Withdrawal of the 2015 Submission Neighbourhood Plan in February 2016 on the advice on Wycombe District Council; Decision by the Parish Council to explore the potential of revising the neighbourhood plan (July 2016); Agreement of the basis on which to prepare a new Neighbourhood Plan voted upon at a public meeting and agreed by Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council (November 2016); and Preparation of the Submission Neighbourhood Plan and (January 2017).
This document takes into account the representations received on the Consultation and Submission Draft Plan, and the issues that arose through its examination and in the period prior to its re- submission to Wycombe District Council. It is accompanied by a revised Sustainability Appraisal and Basic Conditions Statement.
If approved by the District Council, the Neighbourhood Plan will then be subject to an independent Examination. Any recommendations made by the Examiner will be considered by the Parish and District Councils, and the Plan amended again, before being approved for a local referendum. If supported by a majority vote at the referendum, the Neighbourhood Plan will be adopted by Wycombe District Council as planning policy for Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish.
2.1 Background to the Plan Preparation The findings of the Wycombe District Council Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Interim Report, SHLAA February 2014) and Draft Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA 2014) were that the objectively assessed need for housing in Wycombe is likely to be around 11,000 to 12,000 dwellings over the next 20 years, or around 500-700 dwellings annually. This is higher than the 400- 450 homes per year currently achieved, and the requirement set out in the current Core Strategy of just 400 homes per year. This increased need for housing set the agenda for public consultation in early 2014 on new Local Plan options, by seeking ways in which this growth could be accommodated; one option raised was to expand villages by building small numbers of homes on the edges of them.
The Local Plan options consultation held in April 2014 identified Longwick village as a potential location for housing growth given its local amenities. The Longwick Village Capacity Study, undertaken by consultants Tibbalds for Wycombe District Council, was commissioned in order to understand how the village currently works as a place to live and for social and community amenities. This included consulting Longwick Church of England Combined School, and utilities companies.
The Longwick Village Capacity Study (February 2015) process began with a workshop with six parish councillors to identify key issues for wider discussion. A public workshop was then held in October 2014 with discussions focused on five issues: 1. Infrastructure 2. Special facilities 3. Landscape and wildlife 4. Boundaries, historical development and potential development sites 5. The best of Longwick.
This consultation event attracted 137 local residents and stakeholders, and the findings are summarised in Appendix C, along with drawings from people who attended. The event was held in the village hall, near to the primary school, and was publicised to enable parents to attend before or after meeting children from school, and with activities to attract family involvement. This included drawing a map of how they saw Longwick today, using wooden scaled block models to look at housing in different areas, and giving their views on what is needed for young people.
The information from this consultation was used in the Capacity Study to look at a wide range of potential development sites and the issues affecting each of them. The study concluded with recommendations of four possible development sites in Longwick village and the rationale for their selection.
In January 2015, the Parish Council held a public meeting to discuss how to respond to the emerging recommendations of the Capacity Study, and met with overwhelming support from the audience to prepare a neighbourhood plan. This was shortly followed by the Parish Council decision to commence work on a neighbourhood plan, on the assumption that Wycombe District Council would approve the application for the Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. The Longwick Village Capacity Study was formally published on 11 February 2015.
2.2 Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group A Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group was set up, with its first meeting on 16 February 2015. It comprised three members of the Parish Council plus three co-opted residents. It was supported by a Neighbourhood Plan Liaison Officer (also a Parish Councillor), plus the lead officer for the area from the District Council, and the consultant involved in supporting WDC on the Capacity Study, who subsequently helped to prepare the Neighbourhood Plan (TDRC Ltd).
The Neighbourhood Plan Liaison Officer took minutes of meetings, set up a new email account for the Neighbourhood Plan business, co-ordinated the consultation email group and the funding application, sent consultations electronically to formal consultees, and managed correspondence.
Wycombe District Council approved the Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area on 2 March 2015. The starting point for the Plan was agreed by both the Steering Group and Parish Council (5 and 17 March 2015) as being the Capacity Study, making it an important basis for the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan:
“The Steering Group agreed that the Sites and Site Criteria as shown in the Longwick Capacity Study (p43) would be recommended to the Parish Council for consultation purposes in the Neighbourhood Plan. The Steering Group acknowledges there could be refinement of both sites and criteria as the process goes on, but this can rightly result from consultation responses from the community."
3 Initial Community & Business Engagement Following the publication of the Longwick Village Capacity Study, the newly formed Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group consulted with groups or stakeholders who may not have participated in the consultation which informed the earlier Tibbalds Longwick Capacity Study.
This was undertaken using a questionnaire that highlighted some of the issues raised before for Longwick village. This consultation was directed specifically at residents in the hamlets within the Parish, local businesses, key stakeholders (the school and pre-school, local shop/ post office), and community groups such as Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators, and the Women’s Institute. They were contacted by the Steering Group members directly or by email or telephone, and responses were gathered.
A press release was also published in the Bucks Free Press, under the headline "Power to the People" (March 2015) which explained the process underway and how to get involved (see Appendix D).
The questionnaire and the summaries of consultations are included in Appendix E and F respectively. The responses from residents of the hamlets are summarised in Appendix G. The views pointed to support for growth to be focussed at Longwick, but also a degree of uncertainty about the acceptability of additional housing in the hamlet of Ilmer. Some 37 residents of the hamlets responded and showed a clear appreciation of their rural and isolated nature, and dependence on Longwick and its facilities as a larger settlement.
In the same period, Wycombe District Council received responses to the Capacity Study from Buckinghamshire County Council on highways, transportation and education matters. As a result several key issues arose which changed the emphasis of local capacity from that set out within the study:
The capacity of the local primary school is greater than previously thought, due to the current inflows of pupils from outside its formal catchment ; The level of public transport provision available today is very poor, and what would be required to make any housing growth sustainable would need considerable investment. This would need to come from developer contributions given the lack of public sector funding available to deliver this; and The other modes of sustainable travel, to Princes Risborough in particular, need to be funded as part of developer contributions in order to encourage more trips by non-car modes. This feedback shaped how the Plan was developed for public consultation.
The Annual Parish Meeting, held on 21 April, was used as an opportunity to continue to engage and update residents. Similarly the Annual Village Fete was held on 2 May 2015 on Longwick’s playing field, and the Parish Council Steering Group had a stall in order to tell more people about the plans to undertake a Neighbourhood Plan, and ways to get involved in it. The information sheet and feedback from this are in Appendix H.
Using the opinions gathered, the first draft of the Neighbourhood Plan was prepared and agreed as the Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan by the Parish Council on 17 May 2015.
4 The Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan Formal public consultation on the Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan was held between 8 June and 21 July 2015, covering a six week period, and timed to avoid the school holidays.
In order to help the dispersed community throughout the Parish to find out about the draft Plan, it was publicised and made available in the following ways:
The printing, and distribution by volunteers of 600 leaflets giving local residents details of where the Plan could be read or borrowed from, the public events at which to discuss it further in person, and the 12 question survey to fill in and return to the village shop/ post office (see Appendix I); Drop-in sessions with an exhibition at Longwick School, Walnut Tree Lane on 25th -27th June 2015; Online access and responses via the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council website, including the 12 question survey; Emails to members of the email consultation group, which includes members of the community and developers with local interests; Copies of the draft Plan were available to read at: Longwick School, the Post Office, the Red Lion pub, the Parish Council offices and Library Information Centre in Princes Risborough, and Orchard View Farm Shop café, Little Meadle; Loan copies of the Plan were also held by Parish Councillors and members of the Steering Group; and Statutory bodies were contacted by email and sent the link to online material. Mid-way through the consultation period in June, as advertised on the leaflet, a series of drop-in events were held where questions could be asked of the Steering Group, Parish Councillors, the Wycombe District Council local area officer, and the consultant involved in drawing up the Plan. This enabled residents and stakeholders to have key issues explained, to ask more detailed questions on proposed development sites or policies and the overall neighbourhood planning process, or to give their views using large scale plans (see Appendix J, and J1 on where attendees live).
Well over 100 people attended the three sessions (including local land owners), and gave their views in person, and were encouraged to respond online or by hard copy. The following section summarises the responses given to the formal questionnaire which were gathered online and in hard copy at the local post office.
The Consultation Draft Plan was well received by those who attended the event, and the online and written comments attracted positive comments including:
“We appreciate the time and effort put into the Plan and we feel it commendable to have got so far in a relatively short time.”
“Excellent plan and document. Many thanks to the team.”
“A first class document, congratulations to the team.”
“Firstly, well done for your work on the neighbourhood plan. Having been active in local politics many years ago (not locally) I am all too well aware of the work which goes into producing these type of documents.”
5 Responses to the Consultation Questionnaire In order to verify the main principles of the Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan, a 12 question survey was drawn up and distributed.
The questions covered the main vision and objectives that shape the Plan, as well as specific issues where the Steering Group felt that more public involvement was necessary. This was either to reach a true consensus, to elicit more detailed feedback on ideas put forward in the earlier consultation, or to propose solutions to local concerns raised. These included issues of flooding and sewage management, where new development might affect existing homes; the appropriateness of specific site allocations; footpath improvements; car parking; street lighting; and, whether there was a clearer response on new development in the hamlet of Ilmer.
The detailed responses to the open questions are set out in Appendix K, and the main issues raised are highlighted here:
Q1 Do the vision and objectives in Section 4 represent your ideas for the Parish in the future? Answers Total % Yes 83 78 No 16 15 Other 8 7 The majority of views supported the vision and objectives, and the other points raised were incorporated where possible.
Q2 Do you support re-drawing the settlement boundary for Longwick to include only the four centrally located potential sites, to preserve its separation from Princes Risborough? Answers Total % Yes 92 83 No 9 8 Other 10 9 This new settlement boundary for Longwick was supported by the majority of views, and raised ideas about the nature of the relationship with the rural areas in the Parish, and Princes Risborough.
Q3 Do you support a larger setback of 35m between the backs of the existing homes on Wheelwright Road and the backs of possible future homes on the adjacent development site? Current housing policy recommends a minimum of 25m distance. Answers Total % Yes 90 84 No 10 9 Other 7 7 This principle was supported by the majority of views, and reflected concerns raised in an earlier pre-application consultation about this site held by a developer.
Q4 Do you support having new homes fronting onto the rear of the existing Thame Road/ Chestnut Way properties across a landscaped area with water attenuation pond and footpath? Answers Total % Yes 89 82 No 13 12 Other 7 6 This principle was also supported by the majority of views, and addressed the gap between existing homes, an area outside the settlement boundary and a potential site allocation.
Q5 Do you agree with the allocation of the three small Rose Farm frontage sites? Answers Total % Yes 83 76 No 19 18 Other 7 6 The majority of views supported this site allocation, which concerns the ‘green gap’ in the village, and a different type of site from the others identified.
Q6 Do you support the provision of all-weather, permeable loose surface footpaths as indicated through the village playing field, as indicated in Plan Policy L2, or just to it? Answers Total % Through it 20 18 To it 42 39 Both 31 29 None at all 15 14 The majority of views supported providing better links to the footpaths that cross the playing field, which at times become inaccessible. It reflected local concerns about the character of the open space and encouraging residents to walk locally rather than drive to the school, village hall or shop.
Q7 Is more car parking needed in the centre of Longwick, if so where should it be? Answers Total % No 58 56 Yes (At) 46 44 The majority of views did not support providing more parking in Longwick village. This question sought to understand the priorities of the dispersed rural community given the current quality of more sustainable transport choices, making local access difficult. The responses which were in favour reflected concerns about road safety locally and the popularity of the school, village hall, playing field and shop.
Q8 Would some street lighting be appropriate in Longwick’s new and existing streets for greater pedestrian and cycle safety, or is maintaining dark skies more important? Answers Total % Some 33 30 None at all 76 70 The majority of views did not support providing street lighting in Longwick village. This issue had arisen in the earlier consultation as a key factor in making Longwick an attractive rural place to live.
Q9 Early consultation suggested that the development of 5 – 10 new homes in the hamlet of Ilmer may be acceptable. Would you support that? Answers Total % Yes 78 75 No 26 25 The majority of views supported more development in the hamlet of Ilmer. The earlier consultation had recorded this interest at a local level, and so identifying how that was envisaged was important to follow through. However the questionnaire did not seek to establish whether respondents were residents of Ilmer, or of Longwick, who might prefer growth to be directed away from Longwick itself.
Q10 If yes, should this be done by putting an outline around the whole settlement to allow this to be determined site-by-site, OR by allocating a specific site with design principles? Answers Total % Whole 48 50 Specific 27 28 None 21 22 The majority of views supported creating a new settlement boundary around the hamlet of Ilmer, and as with the previous question, it is not known which settlement this support has originated from.
Q11 If this should be a specific site allocation, where should that be? Answers Total % None 32 64 At 18 36 The question sought to identify any locations that might have been at the source of the original suggestion, but the majority of views did not support a specific site allocation, as with Q10. Following discussion by the Steering Group and with advice from Wycombe District Council, the Plan does not allocate sites within the hamlet of Ilmer as it is not a sustainable location for housing growth, given its inaccessible location by poor quality roads, no public transport provision, or local amenities (shop, community facilities, or meeting spaces).
Q12 Is there anything we may have missed that could be in the Neighbourhood Plan? Answers Total % No 29 30 Comments 67 70 Respondents provided suggestions about further issues to incorporate into the Plan. These were: Concerns about road safety and parking on streets causing danger; Managing flood risks; Opportunities for open space and landscaped areas to maintain; including a ‘village green’ at the western end of Bell Crescent. Balancing new homes with the needs of new or existing businesses and expanding local facilities; The need for affordable housing; More reference to fibre optic broadband services to achieve higher connection speeds; More emphasis on renewable energy generation; and The scope for settlements to evolve with small scale change.
6 Representations Received The public consultation process did not require participants to give their names, and so the responses above are anonymous. However the following organisations and individuals sent separate representations to the Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan:
UK Power Networks Wycombe District Council Historic England Bellwood Homes (by Savills) Environment Agency Gladman Developments Ltd Natural England Maccabees Pet Hotel (by J C Emmett) Aylesbury Vale District Council Nigel Stevens, local resident Buckinghamshire County Council Charles Tyler, local resident Children’s and Youth People’s Services Jim and Debbie Cadwallader, local Buckinghamshire County Council – residents Transport, Planning and Environment Roger Dix, local resident Network Rail George O’Neill Chiltern Railways Mr and D Mrs Parker Thames Water James and Tina Butler, local residents
7 Summary of Responses & Amendments A schedule of the representations, along with how the Neighbourhood Plan has responded to the comments made, is provided in Appendix L, as required in the Regulation 14 Schedule of Representations and Amendments, October 2013.
The Plan underwent a number of changes as a result of guidance from Wycombe District Council, a Health Check commissioned from NPIERS, and the consultation responses. These concerned areas where the Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan did not conform with the required basic conditions largely on the wording in policies, how developer contributions were described and areas of ambiguity. These were reviewed and amendments were recommended in an Interim Submission Plan to the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group on September 17th 2015. Subsequently the Steering Group approved it for submission to Wycombe District Council, along with the Sustainability Appraisal.
8 The Revised Neighbourhood Plan Process Following the Submission Draft Plan’s examination, which was concluded in February 2016, Wycombe District Council and the Parish Council met to consider the proposed modifications set out in the examiner’s report. Although the examiner recommended that the Plan should proceed to a referendum, the modifications proposed undermined many of the core objectives that the community had intended. Wycombe District Council recommended that the plan be withdrawn, which the Parish Council agreed in February 2016.
However in the following months, and particularly following the developer’s successful planning appeal on the Barn Road/ Boxer Road site, parish councillors became aware that it was possible to revise and resubmit a neighbourhood plan, and after taking legal advice, agreed to explore options for doing this.
A planning application for 43 homes on the Thame Road/ Bar Lane junction site had been submitted in December 2015, and in May 2016, a large outline planning application for 160 homes on the Barn Road/ Boxer Road site was approved at appeal (as above) - of which a smaller site for only 50 homes had been included in the previous Neighbourhood Plan. In June 2016 an application for Rose Farm was submitted for 65 homes.
Also In June 2016, Wycombe District Council published its Local Plan Draft Consultation Document, which proposed allocating a combination of the previous Neighbourhood Plan sites and the two current planning application sites (Rose Farm and Thame Road/ Bar Lane), but as it was published just before the Barn Road/ Boxer Road appeal decision notice, it did not show that area too. No specific housing numbers or densities were set out at this stage.
The examiner had noted in his report on the previous Neighbourhood Plan that adding “up to 129 new homes…would comprise a very significant increase for a settlement of just 438 homes.” Therefore given the change in scale from allocating land for 129 homes with WDC’s support, to the new Local Plan’s much larger land allocations, the Parish Council met the District Council in July 2016 in order to understand the increased development pressure on the village. WDC’s view was that much of the increased housing pressure arises from its duty to cooperate with Aylesbury Vale District Council over how to accommodate Wycombe District’s own housing needs, and in order to meet this need, Wycombe District Council had identified that Longwick village needed to accommodate 300 new homes in the new Local Plan. It was agreed that the Parish Council would therefore prepare a new Neighbourhood Plan to identify how such growth could be accommodated in the village.
9 New Site Selection Criteria The Parish Council re-convened the Steering Group with one original co-optee and one new co- opted member, reflecting the change in circumstances of previous members who were unable to rejoin it.
The first task of the Steering Group, and its consultant TDRC Ltd, was to review the Neighbourhood Plan examiner’s proposed modifications, and the Barn Road/Boxer Road application inspector’s appeal decision notice, in order to determine how the Neighbourhood Plan should respond to the demand to a greater number of homes being accommodated locally. The previous site selection process (also set out in the Sustainability Appraisal) was deemed appropriate, but many of the criteria used in the Tibbalds’ Longwick Village Capacity report (February 2015) had been dismissed by the inspector of Gladman Homes’ successful appeal for the 160 homes application at Barn Road/ Boxer Road. Therefore a new process for identifying the village’s ability to accommodate future housing growth was required.
As previous public consultations and discussions locally had been on the basis of Longwick growing by 129 homes on four small sites in the village, this process started by looking at the minimum amount of housing growth that could be accommodated locally while still meeting the Neighbourhood Plan’s basic conditions. With the 160 homes at Barn Road/ Boxer Road already approved, and no new information changing the suitability of the other sites previously allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan, the sites proposed were:
160 homes at Barn Road/ Boxer Road (encompassing the previous Plan’s site L2) 43 homes at Thame Road/ Bar Lane (reflecting the previous Plan’s site L1a and b) 20 (or more homes) on the land near the Chestnut Way junction (previously L3) 20 homes at Rose Farm frontage, part of which lay within the Rose Farm South application site (previously L4).
In order to agree whether the Neighbourhood Plan could meet WDC’s revised expectations for Longwick, the Parish Council met in September 2016 to review the sites originally identified in the Tibbalds report – sites A-T. The sites for additional homes were described as: acceptable/ definite for inclusion/ some support if a shortfall/ no support.
U
Site Commentary Conclusion Sites A and At far end of the village, outside the settlement boundary, good No support B agricultural land but prone to flooding. Would be far from village centre and amenities. Sites C, D Each site individually is small so would not contribute much towards Acceptable and E overall numbers. Mainly older properties so care would be needed not to conflict with any new build. Some distance from village amenities and flood issues. Site F This is Site L4c which was previously included in NP so should stay in new Definite for NP. inclusion Sites G and These correspond to Sites L1a and L1b which were included in NP so Definite for I should stay in new NP (i.e. only for the south western part of Site I). inclusion Site H Broadly corresponds with Site L4b which was included in NP so should stay Definite for in new NP. inclusion Site J Poor quality land, prone to flooding. Potential conflict with nearby long No support established local boarding kennels. Would damage the linear structure of the village. Sites K and Site K corresponds to Site L2 from NP and would have been included in Definite for Q and R new NP. Subsequently K, Q and R have now been approved at appeal. inclusion Site L Reduced in size, this corresponds to Site 3 from NP so should stay in new Definite for NP. inclusion Sites M, N There is a strong desire from Parish Councillors (and villagers), and No support and O supported by WDC, not to allow any development on these three sites in order to retain a green buffer between Longwick and Princes Risborough. Site P Councillors were divided on this site. Walnut Tree Lane, where the primary Some school lies, will be under pressure from pedestrian traffic from sites Q and R support if a and the vehicular turning onto Thame Road is already difficult, so including shortfall this site would make this far worse. Site S Access to this site is very limited, and the adjacent properties are Some characterful and historic, so any development would have to be in keeping, support if a and mean a smaller number of homes. shortfall Site T This site is a critical flooding area and if developed would substantially No support alter the linear profile of the village, and add visual impact from AONB. Could also be traffic issues with access through the Walkers Road housing area. Rose Farm This site has good access off Thame Road, and no major loss of views etc. Definite for (new Does not conflict with linearity to a great extent. Has the support of all inclusion proposal: Councillors. Site U)
The Steering Group met in October 2016 to review the conclusions, agree a strategy for the Neighbourhood Plan, and organise a public meeting to provide an update on the Plan’s progress, and explain the proposed strategy and timeline.
9.1 The Strategy for the Revised Plan After consulting with Planning Aid England on the extent to which a neighbourhood plan could add design principles or guidelines to sites with outline consent, it was agreed that the Neighbourhood Plan would set key principles for sites which had, or were seen as likely to be granted, outline consent, and aim to identify infill sites which would enable the Neighbourhood Plan to meet WDC’s Local Plan housing target for Longwick of 300 homes.
Meeting WDC’s target was judged to be an important aim so that the new Neighbourhood Plan would not be superseded by the emerging Local Plan and therefore fail again. The issues in the previous Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan that had been proposed for modification by the examiner are set out in Appendix M along with how the revised Plan responds to these.
In November 2016 the Parish Council hosted a public meeting to update and explain the new Neighbourhood Plan strategy, and in the same month, the Thame Road/ Bar Lane site was granted planning consent for 43 homes by WDC. In order to ensure that local residents were aware of the proposal to review and resubmit a new Neighbourhood Plan and which was to be discussed at a public meeting (in November 2016), 600 leaflets were printed and distributed to every household in the parish, and notices placed in key local newsletters, notice boards and also in the main library in Princes Risborough. Extra copies of the leaflet were also available at Briant's store, the Red Lion pub, the village shop and Post Office, Orchard View Farm Shop (in Little Meadle), as well as being posted on lamp posts throughout Longwick village.
As an ongoing concern in the village was about flooding and specifically sewage flooding in the northern end of the village, representatives from Thames Water were invited to attend and present their understanding of the issues and ways of addressing this. The presentations at the public meeting, which included break-out workshop groups, set out:
the new Local Plan context, by WDC the reasons why the previous Plan had been withdrawn the proposed strategy to revise the Plan potential options for new housing sites to include and policies to draft, and how housing growth and infrastructure provision would be managed, with specific reference to waste water. (See presentation in Appendix O for parish council-led issues)
The meeting was well attended with more than 130 people present, and included a show of hands on whether to revise and re-submit the Neighbourhood Plan; this showed an overwhelming support to proceed.
By the time of the public meeting in November 2016, the consultation period for the planning application for 65 homes at Rose Farm had ended, and the Parish Council had submitted an objection to this application in August 2016. The applicants’ agents had also held a pre-application consultation exhibition locally in 2015, and had submitted a response to the examiner onthe earlier Neighbourhood Plan, but did not engage with the neighbourhood planning process itself.
However in December 2016, a petition with 25 signatures was submitted to the Parish Council (forwarded to Wycombe District Council) from local residents who objected to the Parish Council’s inclusion of the Rose Farm application site in the proposed new Neighbourhood Plan strategy (see Appendix P). In its response to the petitioners, the Parish Council restated the risk of preparing a plan which does not anticipate the emerging Local Plan – so that it could fail - and that the Neighbourhood Plan would not be able to delay the application from being considered until the Plan was submitted; other planning approvals locally had reduced the weight of principles previously used to seek to limit growth in the village. In order to address the issues raised, the draft Neighbourhood Plan includes design principles to address some of the points of concern.
9.2 Infrastructure Capacity A key part of the earlier consultation in the village in 2014 was on the local infrastructure capacity, which was reviewed in this revised Plan process.
The primary school and how its catchment area is currently managed were reviewed by Buckinghamshire County Council in 2015, and the numbers updated with data from the school roll in autumn 2016. This suggested that the primary school could accommodate 300 homes without expansion to 1.5FE through a process of allocating school places locally, rather than accepting children from nearby areas, over the long term.
The size of the village hall was assessed against the proposed allocation of 300 homes, and according to WDC’s standard of providing community facilities at 0.14sqm/ person is sufficient in size. However it is clear that the hall is very popular with local interest groups and is therefore well used.
The provision of health facilities locally which has long been an aspiration would be unlikely, given the local health authority’s projections for growth at Princes Risborough does not include new facilities as part of their future patient care plans.
Other commercially-run services, such as another shop and nursery could be proposed in the village, if suitable premises could be found, and additional public open spaces and new sports facilities are identified in two of the new housing sites. There has been interest in establishing a village or community hub/ café for home workers, small businesses and the local residents. Given the low service levels reported for internet access and power outages in the hamlets, this facility could provide a useful working space in the area, and the small Rose Farm frontage site was identified as a visible location, away from the congestion around the village shop and post office, access to the village hall and playing fields.
The limited capacity of the utilities serving the village – the waste water drainage system in particular – have been the subject of much informal discussion, but evidence has not been formally available to the neighbourhood planning process, perhaps so as to not ‘blight’ the affected areas in the future. In discussion with Thames Water, and as confirmed at the public meeting and workshop in November 2016, the waste water system in the village is the subject of a study by Thames Water in order to identify the current cause of local problems and how to address it.
The nature of Thame Road, which was raised as a key discussion topic in the initial October 2014 consultation, has been reviewed, with the aim of: reducing the dominance of traffic and HGVs in particular; enforcing the current speed limit of 30mph or seeking a lower speed limit; providing more pedestrian crossings; improving pedestrian footways and cycleways, and, providing safer places to park on-street where there is currently unrestricted parking, but the passing traffic renders it unsafe and often causes vehicle damage. An interest has also been clearly expressed in creating a specific ‘village green’ at the green space where Bell Crescent, Chestnut Way and Thame Road meet.
10 Conclusion The publicity, engagement and consultation undertaken throughout the production of the Neighbourhood Plan has been effective, open and of high quality, with many opportunities provided for those that live and work within the Neighbourhood Area to join in the process, make comment, and raise issues and concerns.
All statutory requirements have been met and a significant level of consultation, engagement and research has been completed throughout the Neighbourhood Area. This Consultation Statement has been produced to document the consultation and engagement process undertaken and is considered to comply with Part 5, Section 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations, 2012. 11 Appendices
A. Designation of Plan area, March 2015
B. Terms of Reference, Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
C. Longwick Village Capacity Study, Consultation Feedback report, Wycombe District Council, October 2014
C1. Images from Consultation, October 2014
D. Press release published in Bucks Free Press, March 2015
E. Sample questions for use in stakeholder, business and hamlets consultation
F. Feedback from businesses and stakeholders, March-April 2015
G. Hamlet consultation table, March-April 2015
H. Village Fete information sheets and feedback, May 2015
I. Public Consultation Sample consultation leaflet and questionnaire, June 2015
J. Exhibition panels from June-July 2015 events
K. Summary of written responses received to consultation questionnaire
L. Schedule of Representations and Amendments
M. Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan Examiner’s Report (February 2016), A Review of Proposed Modifications (February 2017)
N. Longwick‐cum‐Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan Examination, A Report to Wycombe District Council by Independent Examiner, Nigel McGurk, Erimax Land, Planning and Communities, February 2016
O. Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan, Update Meeting, 23 November 2016 - presentation
P. Rose Farm Development Petition, December 2016, by D Williams. APPENDIX A
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area Application
The application
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council submitted an application for a Neighbourhood Area on 23 December 2014. The application covered the entirety of the parish council area, and was subject to a consultation under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, which ran between 7 January 2015 and 20 February 2015.
Consultation
The consultation generated a total of 2 responses. One of these was from an individual expressing support for the application. The other, from Savills on behalf of the Princes Risborough Consortium, noted that the parish boundary extends to the east of the B4009 and therefore overlaps with the Strategic Area of Search in respect of Princes Risborough. The response stated that it is essential that matters associated with overlapping boundaries are considered early in document preparation in order that such documents provide a joined-up planning policy approach, and that they are therefore prepared with due regard to one another.
Decision
The responses have been considered and noted, but it is not considered that they give rise to objections to the area as applied for or that there are any other substantive issues or grounds for objection to the proposed area. Wycombe District Council has therefore proceeded with designation of the Neighbourhood Area as applied for.
The Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area was formally designated on 2nd March 2015. Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area
Statement of Purpose: Site Plan for Council Business Use Only OS mapping: © Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100023306. Spatial Information Management Map produced in MapInfo GIS by: Scale: Date: Print for the public: You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute, sell ICT Business Systems sbarlow 1:38000 03/03/2015 or otherwise make available the Licensed Data to third parties in any form. Queen Victoria Road Aerial Photo Imagery 2010 and 2006: © Getmapping plc. www.getmapping.com. High Wycombe Bucks HP11 1BB Saved as Layout in Workspace Path / Name: www.wycombe.gov.uk
Appendix B Terms of Reference, Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
The Parish Council decided to go forward with a Neighbourhood Plan at its meeting of 20 January 2015, minutes of which include:
10. WHETHER TO ENGAGE IN PREPARATION OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR THE PARISH Cllr Sally Whitworth proposed that the Parish Council resolve to progress the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan for the parish, subject to the Neighbourhood Area application being formally designated by WDC following the end of the consultation period. Seconded by Cllr Jane Rogers. All present agreed.
11. THE COMPOSITION OF A STEERING GROUP TO GUIDE THE WORK FOR THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Cllr Val McPherson proposed that the Steering Group should consist of 6 members of which 3 are councillors. All present agreed. All further agreed that Councillors Sally Whitworth, Val McPherson and Brian Richards would be the council members to sit on the Steering Group. The eligibility criteria was agreed as the following:- Steering Group Members should not: Be a member of or related to a family owning land shown as any of the potential sites; Be a member of or related to a family owning land adjoining any of the potential sites; Be a member of a political party. Live outside the Parish. It was further agreed to invite the candidates to submit a written document confirming that they qualify for consideration and how they see they could contribute to the Neighbourhood Plan making process. Cllr Brian Richards agreed to draft a letter inviting the candidates to submit their written documents together with advising them of potential dates for the first meetings.
APPENDIX C
Longwick Public Consultation Workshop
October 2014
Issues report
1 Longwick Public Consultation Workshop October 2014: Issues report
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 3
2 Infrastructure ...... 3 2.1 Road Traffic ...... 3 2.2 Pavements ...... 4 2.3 Road Crossings ...... 4 2.4 Public Transport ...... 4 2.5 Cycling ...... 5 2.6 Parking conflicts ...... 5 2.7 Sewage Flooding ...... 5 2.8 Electricity ...... 5 2.9 Broad band and mobile communications...... 6 2.10 Surface water flooding ...... 6
3 Social Facilities ...... 6 3.1 Outdoor Play Space ...... 6 3.2 Community meeting space ...... 6 3.3 Shopping...... 7 3.4 Doctors ...... 7 3.5 Dentist ...... 7 3.6 Primary School ...... 7 3.7 Affordable housing ...... 7
4 Landscape & Wildlife ...... 7 4.1 Landscape setting...... 7 4.2 Wildlife areas ...... 8
5 Boundaries and historical development sites ...... 8 5.1 Village boundary and heart ...... 8 5.2 Development sites ...... 8 5.3 Potential Locations ...... 9
6 The Best of Longwick ...... 10 6.1 Rural setting ...... 10 6.2 Community spirit ...... 10 6.3 Potential ways of enhancing village life ...... 10
2
Longwick Public Consultation Workshop
1 Introduction This consultation event was held on Tuesday 7th October 2014 at Longwick Village Hall (3-9pm) to invite detailed comments from residents about the village today and how it could respond to change in the future. It was well attended with 137 people signing the visitor list, and 26 questionnaires handed in on the day. A further 19 responses were received via the Council’s online survey and 5 emails, making a total of 50 written responses in addition to the many notes made at the event.
In order to invite discussion, the format of the workshop was a small introductory exhibition and five themed topic tables, with maps for notes and comments invited from participants, and the questionnaires included the same issues.
Additional activities included a 1:500 scale plan of Longwick with the opportunity to use wooden block models to look at the location of existing and possible new homes, plus ‘mental mapping’ and drawing houses for younger children.
The discussions around the five main themes are described fully below, and the issues highlighted have been used in the preparation of the Longwick Capacity Study.
2 Infrastructure Respondents were asked to consider the following questions:
How does traffic affect life in the village? Are there enough places to cross the roads? Would better public transport help and to where? Is cycling a safe option? Do you use the footpaths and public rights of way surrounding the village for leisure / dog walking? If so how could they improved and which routes are most popular? Do you or would you consider walking or cycling to Princes Risborough to use facilities there? Is flooding a major issue and where? Do you experience problems with other utilities like electricity and telecoms?
2.1 Road Traffic Thame Road and Chestnut Way regularly see car and HGV traffic at speeds far greater than the speed limits there (30 mph), so that the junctions at Chestnut Way, Thame Road, and Lower Icknield Way (where the traffic speeds become 40 and 60 mph) are hazardous with poor visibility, especially with high traffic speeds across the B4009 roundabout. The 30mph road markings have not been repainted properly, and there is a desire for speed cameras at either end of the village to enforce speed limits (as in Tiddington), and with traffic calming in the centre of the village (as in Chinnor). There was also concern about HS2 construction traffic exacerbating this, as there is already a lot of six-wheeled farming and industrial traffic passing along Thame Road and Chestnut Way.
At peak times, which are 7-9am and 4-7pm here, drivers leave early to avoid traffic elsewhere. There is a lot of congestion at Chestnut Way onto Thame Road as people are unable to pull out of the junction, and at Walnut Tree Lane due to poor visibility caused by a badly sited new telecoms exchange box. The crossroads of Bar Lane and Walnut Tree Lane are seen as a difficult junction for access onto Thame Road, and parking on the roads and pavements makes visibility unsafe. Bar Lane
3 was also identified as a long-term rat run to Aylesbury (via Ford), with a speed limit of 60 mph making the narrow pavements and footway unusable and dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
The hedges and shrubs at the garage on the B4009 roundabout also restrict visibility of fast passing cars.
There were several discussions about the historic bypass proposal to connect Princes Risborough, Chinnor and Thame without passing through Longwick.
2.2 Pavements The pavements along Thame Road are very poorly maintained with uneven surfaces, and are too narrow, lying adjacent to fast moving traffic (30/40/60 mph in various places) and restricted by overgrown shrubbery in many spots. This is causing many more people to drive to school and the post office, adding to local parking problems at school drop-off and pick-up times. The lack of any pavement along the north side of Chestnut Way makes it very dangerous for pedestrians, and many people were concerned about children’s and elderly people’s safety here, as well as throughout the village.
Walking from the village to Princes Risborough and the station was not seen as safe or reasonable for the same reasons, as Summerleys Road and Longwick Road were too narrow, unlit and the traffic too fast.
The footpaths across the fields are judged to be far better quality, but not helping with transport issues. There were requests for better surfaces on the public footpath and bridleway connections to the Phoenix Trail, which become extremely muddy.
2.3 Road Crossings There was a perception that more road crossings on Thame Road would be helpful, but that this could increase congestion within the village. The traffic lights near the post office are not on an obvious desire line, and so people continue to cross the road where they can. New crossing points (e.g. at least zebra crossings) at the Thame end of village and near Chestnut Way should be considered, and to help children using the school bus services to cross safely, as the junction at the Red Lion pub is very busy at peak times.
The village has no street lighting, and opinion is divided between the village’s rural character making it inappropriate, and great concerns about the unsafe pedestrian and cycling environment on the main road demanding better visibility. (There was an historic decision made to light the main road, which was apparently funded, but not delivered).
The brightness of the traffic lights also makes it hard to judge whether there are people in the road nearby by. There are also no ‘cat’s eyes’ road markings through and beyond the village to guide drivers, or reflective bollards, and so several homes and fences have been hit by fast vehicles.
2.4 Public Transport There are no peak time buses through the village in any direction. There are two midweek midday scheduled bus services, but with no return journey the same day. The free community bus runs off peak and is a lifeline for those without a car (funded originally by Hypnos and now sustained with community support). There are no direct public transport links to Princes Risborough station, or
4 services which could interchange in the town for Aylesbury or High Wycombe. Thame would also be a popular destination, but currently the local bus only allows for a 2 hour off peak visit. There was a strong feeling that any new homes would need to provide a substantial change to this to be sustainable, or should be located closer to existing services and jobs.
The school bus service is judged to be significantly more expensive than Arriva services in the wider area, but which do not come to the village.
2.5 Cycling For those without cars, this is only option for journeys to work. However, Bar Lane is too narrow for 60mph traffic and cyclists - with a ditch along one side - as it is a rat-run to Mill Lane and beyond. Similarly Lower Icknield Way, Summerleys Road and Longwick Road routes into Princes Risborough are hazardous for cyclists at any time, and crossing the junctions on these routes is also dangerous. The impact of speeding traffic forces many cyclists onto the already narrow and poor quality pavements, causing conflicts with pedestrians, including young children.
2.6 Parking conflicts As Longwick’s facilities also serve other villages (Owlswick, Ilmer etc which have none at all), local parking is needed. This is an issue at school times on Walnut Tree Lane, in the village hall car park, and outside the post office in general, where many people reported regularly witnessing near-miss accidents with passing traffic. Many children and visitors to the shop come from beyond the village, but the parking problems are also caused by local people driving and not walking.
Briants’ and the Red Lion pub’s delivery lorries have to park on Longwick Road to make deliveries, which was seen as good for slowing traffic down, but also unsafe for pedestrians.
2.7 Sewage Flooding The sewage pump at Thame end of village receives all of the village waste, and then pumps it back to Princes Risborough sewage works (Summerleys Road). However for more than 10 years, this pump has been failing regularly and flooding the local area with sewage. This sewage flooding is a major infrastructure concern for the village and any growth in Princes Risborough. Residents have mounted a campaign with Thames Water involving Ofwat, but the utility company has been paying fines, rather than investing in new equipment. In 2012-3, there were 8 sewage floods, and in 2013-4 there were 5, and which were not always linked to periods of heavy rainwater, which can exacerbate the issue. The pump is judged to be inadequate, but also frequent power cuts mean that it regularly stops working completely. The capacity of the Summerleys Road sewage works also needs to be verified, especially given expansion at Haddenham and the pumping station capacity there, and the capacity of Henton pumping station.
2.8 Electricity Longwick and the surrounding villages have frequent power cuts, sometimes for minutes or many hours, and the reasons are not clear. For residents who have lived there for 35-40 years, these seem to be slightly less frequent now, but it is not resolved. The power cuts seem to affect different ends of the village, or pairs of houses at the same time, with no pattern between off peak and peak periods. It is thought to be due potentially to the overhead cabling being vulnerable in areas where there are trees nearby, as at the Thame end of the village, or the substation at Ilmer being unreliable. (The development at Sawmill/Wheelwright Road seemed to be less affected.)
5
There is however an immediate link between the power cuts and the sewage pumping problem, as an emergency generator to maintain power was installed, but was reportedly stolen and has not been replaced.
2.9 Broad band and mobile communications As the electricity supply is so unreliable, broad band and other internet services are significantly affected, and mobile phone signals are judged to be poor. These two factors have a bearing on businesses operating in the area, and limit its appeal for any future employment prospects.
2.10 Surface water flooding Longwick is an area of springs and streams. There are two main areas within the village which see surface water flooding regularly. The first - at Bar Lane, along the rear of the eastern side of Thame Road, and Sawmill Road properties - is seen to be caused by the Bar Lane ditch which had allowed water to drain away later being filled in. (The stream passes under Thame Road here to run on the western side in the south). Bar Lane becomes impassable and the flood water in the field to the north can be 18-24” deep.
At the second area in the south - Chestnut Way, Bell Crescent and the residential roads nearby - flood water is common in gardens and on the field south of the playing field. The green areas that also flood are along the stream west of and parallel to Thame Road, and the lane to school from the playing fields past the Scout Hut.
There is also localised flooding reported on Walnut Tree Lane close to the railway line embankment.
3 Social Facilities Respondents were asked to consider the following questions:
Are there enough places to play in the village? Or space for meetings? Does the village need more space in school now? What do you travel to other towns for – doctors, dentists, shopping, pub? Is parking a problem here and where is it needed? What else would make village life more enjoyable and convenient? Are there some facilities that are struggling to survive or that have closed recently?
3.1 Outdoor Play Space The playing field by the village hall is the only facility in village and surrounding areas, and includes a multi-use games area, a skate-park, play park with equipment, one football pitch and one cricket pitch (sharing the same space but seasonal). Adult cricket and football clubs use the playing fields, but not many children’s clubs. Annual village-wide events are very popular including the May Fete and may-pole dancing, which is held there. There are no indoor sports facilities however. The field near Strattons Farm is a privately owned now, not a public playing field as implied on the OS maps.
3.2 Community meeting space The village hall is well used, as the village has a good community life, and so more capacity would be welcomed. The hall includes the car park and changing facilities to support the playing field, but it is managed separately from the playing field. There is often conflict over the hall car park as it is used intensively at school times especially. The Scout Hut is only used by them. The school hall is also used after school hours.
6
3.3 Shopping The local shop and post office is currently limited in size, but provides an essential service and has limited parking for visitors. (There are reports of the shop expanding soon). Most people visit Princes Risborough for convenience and supermarket shopping (Tesco and M&S), but car parking is major deterrent as it is either full, or it is not free as it is in Thame town centre. Thame is also popular as it is seen as having a greater variety and quality of shopping (including Waitrose), or Aylesbury for convenience and comparison shopping. There is concern that Tesco in Princes Risborough is already a small store, which would need to be expanded.
3.4 Doctors Longwick residents are registered with the two GP practices in Princes Risborough, as that is the required catchment, but many find it hard to get appointments promptly, and so would welcome a new GP in the village.
3.5 Dentist NHS dentists are hard to find in the area, with most people visiting Thame, Aylesbury and Princes Risborough, while some travel 40 minutes away to Abbots Langley in Herts, due to a lack of places closer.
3.6 Primary School Longwick Church of England Primary School is regarded locally as excellent, but currently has low pupil numbers in the upper years (less than 20 per class). The Reception and KS1 classes are full this year, but the school has previously been under threat due to the low take-up of places. The village feel of the school is an important aspect, and so any expansion needs to be carefully assessed for future demand and the scale of growth. (All numbers and forecasts need to be verified with the school and Buckinghamshire County Council, as different estimates have been received).
Its capacity is 200 pupils, but there are currently 165 pupils enrolled, with a problem coming in three years’ time due to the lack of capacity. Expanding it would require a rethink of the parking and access problems witnessed today around Walnut Tree Lane and the village hall. The school’s Travel Plan supported by Buckinghamshire County Council is hard to promote given the local access problems, and this also applies to children going to secondary school in Princes Risborough who have to cycle along Longwick Road, or try to cross Thame Road to catch the school bus.
3.7 Affordable housing There were several references to the need for more affordable housing in the area.
4 Landscape & Wildlife Respondents were asked to consider the following questions:
Do you know of wildlife areas around the village? Where are the best views from? What do you like about the landscape here?
4.1 Landscape setting Long open landscape views to the Chilterns are a key part of Longwick’s appeal, especially for residents on the eastern side of the village, along Bar Lane to Owlswick, and for walkers past the
7 railway line on the west. Closer to the village, the landscape is less spectacular but valued for its quiet rural character, and residents can be out in the countryside within minutes of leaving home on foot.
Circular walks are popular to the west along the public rights of way (footpaths and bridleways), and over to the Phoenix Trail and Bledlow, and east to Owlswick and Ilmer. The public rights of way are all well used for walking, biking, horse riding and running, and there was a desire to see more links, better signposting and routes to walk to Princes Risborough through the fields.
4.2 Wildlife areas The hedgerows are important visual features of the village as well as providing good wildlife areas, along with the railway embankment. On all sides of the village there have been lots of sighting of different wildlife, including: a long eared owl, barn owls, tawny owls, buzzards, kestrel, merlins, skylarks, nesting red kites, grey and red legged partridges, hares, glis-glis (edible dormouse), voles, bats, badgers, foxes, muntjack and roebuck deer, various butterflies, as well as newts, toads and frogs along the stream. Wildflowers were also mentioned including yellow rattle.
Having no street lighting and dark skies is seen as ensuring that the area remains very rural and allows people to see the night sky. The green frontages and hedges along Thame Road were also seen as an important part of the village’s rural character.
5 Boundaries and historical development sites Respondents were asked to consider the following questions:
Where do you think Longwick starts and finishes? Where would you say the ‘heart’ of the village is? If there were new homes in the village, should these be in small pockets or on one larger site? Where would this be? Does the phasing of any sites matter?
5.1 Village boundary and heart The perceived village is much larger than the formally identified settlement area (‘Settlement beyond the Green Belt’ in WDC maps), with the farmsteads to the north included, starting from the first house in the village at the Thame end or the speed limit signs. To the south the boundary is seen as being at the cluster of homes and Longwick Mill through the railway bridge, but more commonly just up to Lower Icknield Way. The railway embankment is a village boundary to the west, but for many it is the line at the edge of development on Walnut Tree Lane running north and south. In the east, the boundary is seen as the line along the back of Wheelwright Road running north and south. There were widely expressed concerns that Princes Risborough’s expansion should not go north of Alscot or the Longwick bog area.
There were mixed views about the location of the village heart – whether there was one at all – but it was identified as being at the shop, village hall and the school area, or around the Red Lion pub.
5.2 Development sites Respondents were aware of many land parcels that had been looked at for development before, e.g. the triangular field next to Laurel’s Farm (Briants yard) along Thame Road was once proposed for a masonic hall.
8
The scale of the current planning application for 175 homes north of Williams Way is seen as too big, and its impact could be very disruptive to village life today with major traffic and infrastructure concerns. Dispersing new houses around the village was seen as better and in phases to make it easier to manage. There was a desire to work to the same density levels at the village today, and to maintain green pockets throughout the village. (One respondent had calculated that historically Longwick has absorbed 5 new houses per year for the last 20 years.)
Small infill sites of 20-30 new homes, like the controlled but organic growth that the village had seen before, were preferable to larger ‘housing schemes’, and some residents wanted to see a limit of 50 new homes in the village for the foreseeable future. Any development in Longwick would involve commuting to work elsewhere and so this has to be recognised in more sustainable transport (e.g. cycling ways, peak time buses, and improved road junctions) than residents have today.
There was a clear view that the old farmsteads along Thame Road represent Longwick’s distinctiveness, which is not statutorily protected as the listed buildings are, infill development would spoil this heritage if the farms were redeveloped.
5.3 Potential Locations There was strong consensus that there needs to be a strategy for the whole village area to manage any further applications coming to the area, as well as setting the quality and character of new development. Any sites to be considered would need to be along Thame Road or at least with very good access to it. Small pockets of housing could be appropriate on some sites (but not all should be filled):
Eastern side of Thame Road:
North-east of Wheelwright Road/ Sawmill Road (historic application site - but see flood mapping) South of Wheelwright Road/ Sawmill Road development (see flood mapping), and with the suggestion to leave a small ‘green’ opposite Rose Farm North of Bar Lane (see flood mapping) South of Bar Lane (see traffic issues at the junction too) Next to Laurel’s Farm (historic application site) At the B4009 roundabout corner (see archaeological mapping).
Western side of Thame Road:
Field south of Home Farm – no direct access available Northern two fields of Rose Farm – direct access to Thame Road possible Large field from Rose Farm to railway line – access via Walnut Tree Lane or Rose Farm sites New frontage development (of bungalows) on south side of Walnut Tree Lane North of Williams Way (current application site) for far fewer homes (see flood mapping) - access via Chestnut Way.
9
6 The Best of Longwick Respondents were asked to consider the following questions:
What is the best thing about living in the village? Is it the rural setting, community life, or proximity to other places? How could change improve on that?
6.1 Rural setting Longwick’s rural character means that residents have a strong attachment to the open landscape and scenery around it, and access to the countryside for walks on well-kept public rights of way. It is a peaceful and quiet location (apart from traffic issues), with many working farms around the area growing barley and corn. It is also in a useful strategic location with good access to London, Oxford, High Wycombe and Aylesbury, as well as the two nearby market towns. The lack of light, noise and vehicle pollution is also valued.
6.2 Community spirit The village is popular with long-time residents, as well as people settling from London and other towns and villages, due to its strong community and village life, which are felt to originate from its small scale.
People know and keep an eye on each other, being ‘not too close to neighbours’ visually or physically. People appreciate that the village is safe and friendly, with a low crime rate. Being able to walk to school and pre-school is important and the shop-post office and pub are valuable assets. The sports clubs, youth organisations, WI, scouts and Parish Council are seen as very good, and there is a sense that the facilities suit the population as it is today. Longwick should not become ‘a suburb’ or ‘an off-shoot’ of Princes Risborough.
Residents recognise that Longwick’s linear shape on historic maps shows how it has gradually absorbed new development over the last 120 years, as well as different housing styles.
6.3 Potential ways of enhancing village life Most respondents feel that the village works well as it is, despite the issues outlined earlier. A large development in a relatively short time would make it very difficult to successfully integrate new residents into community life and ensure that the infrastructure difficulties and new facilities were properly provided. As a result, the quality of life in the village would be greatly affected and much of its character would be lost.
Some respondents felt that the village heart could be stronger, as the traffic dominates it today, and a more sociable centre which included a coffee shop or other retail/ mixed uses would be popular. More benches and another climbing frame were suggested for the children’s park, along with better indoor facilities for young people. Affordable housing for young people and families would encourage them to stay in the village. The location of the church and a burial ground were also mentioned as ideas to consider for the future.
END
10
APPENDIX C1 Images from October 2014 consultation
Appendix D Neighbourhood Plan News
Published in Bucks Free Press under the headline "Power to the People” w/c 23 March 2015.
Further to the District Council’s Open day in October as part of the Longwick Capacity Study, a packed Village Hall in January learnt how a Neighbourhood Plan could enable the community to guide how Longwick village and the wider Parish develops.
Overwhelming support was given for the Parish Council to proceed with making a Neighbourhood Plan. The application to the District Council for designating the entire Parish as a Neighbourhood Area was approved on 2nd March.
A Steering Group has been convened. This consists of Cllr Val McPherson (Chair), Cllr Sally Whitworth, Cllr Brian Richards, Janet Marsh, Graham Bucknell and Tony Bravery. The three co-opted members were selected from those expressing interest at the January meeting.
Work has commenced on the initial stages of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan for the Parish. Visions and objectives have been drafted and potential sites and site selection criteria have been recommended to the Parish Council. Engagement with the hamlets within the Parish has commenced, as these were not within the scope of the District Council’s Study in October. Meetings with some key interested ‘Stakeholder’ parties have been held; others are planned.
The Parish Council wishes to consult as extensively as possible on the emerging Plan. A new email address has been set up to handle Neighbourhood Plan matters. Those who expressed interest in being kept informed by email at the January meeting have been included in a Consultation Group.
This is being supplemented by those who have registered interest further to their response to the Local Plan consultation earlier last year. Those already on the Consultation Group list should have already received this News item by email. If you have not received this by email directly, you can register your interest by emailing [email protected].
The Parish Council has agreed to set up a Neighbourhood Plan page on the Council’s website: http://www.longwickcumilmer.org.uk/ Look out for this as it will hold an expanding list of documents and relevant material for the plan process.
Notes of meetings will be posted on the Parish and Village Hall notice boards.
A presentation on the latest developments will be given at the Annual Parish Meeting, 21st April, 7:30 PM in the Village Hall. Please come along then to listen, comment and ask questions.
A stall is being planned for the Fete, 2nd May, on the Recreation Ground.
The aim is for a Draft Plan to be considered by the Parish Council at its meeting of 19th May. Formal consultation will follow and the next few months will be a very important time.
A referendum will be held near the end of the process. If there is a majority who vote in favour of the Plan, it will be ‘made’ and the policies will become part of the Development Plan and have to be considered whenever planning applications are submitted.
The Parish Council encourages everyone to be involved in this, to help guide how Longwick and other areas of the parish develop in future. Appendix E: LONGWICK-CUM-ILMER PARISH COUNCIL
Questionnaire for the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish hamlets as part of the Neighbourhood Plan consultation.
Please rate the following issues in terms of importance by circling a number between 1 and 5 for each issue; 1 being unimportant and 5 being Very Important. For items rated 5, please provide supporting details in the comments box:
1) Infrastructure of the Hamlets
Traffic 1 2 3 4 5
Footpaths, Pavements and bridleways 1 2 3 4 5
Cycling facilities 1 2 3 4 5
Public Transport 1 2 3 4 5
Surface Water, Drainage and Flooding 1 2 3 4 5
Sewage 1 2 3 4 5
Electricity, Broadband and other utilities 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
2) Social Facilities within the Hamlets and wider Parish
Shopping Facilities & access 1 2 3 4 5
Doctors, Dentists and other medical support 1 2 3 4 5
Schools 1 2 3 4 5
Affordable housing 1 2 3 4 5
Retirement housing 1 2 3 4 5
Leisure, recreation and Sports Facilities 1 2 3 4 5
Business facilities \ hub (in Longwick) 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
3) Landscape and Wildlife within the Hamlets
Landscape Setting 1 2 3 4 5
Wildlife and biodiversity 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
4) Boundaries and historical development sites of the Hamlets
Hamlet boundaries, heart and character 1 2 3 4 5
Hamlet potential development sites 1 2 3 4 5
Employment opportunities and sites including agriculture 1 2 3 4 5
Separation between hamlets and built up areas 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
Please circle the number of houses you would support in the period 2015 to 2033 within the your hamlet
0-2 2-5 5-10 10+
Comments:
Name: …………………………………………. Age: …………………………………………………………
Hamlet: ………………………………………. Email Address: …………………………………………….
Please return the completed Questionnaire to your local Parish Councillor, Hamlet Contact Person or the Parish Council Office by 27th March 2015.
Appendix F: Feedback from discussions with stakeholders and businesses
Meeting with Longwick Church of England Combined School 12/03/2015 Those Present: Brian Richards - Parish Steering Group Janet Marsh - Parish Steering Group Trudi Cochin - Headteacher Kathryn Trout - Vice Chair of Governors There are currently some 170 pupils at the school, against a long established capacity of 210 i.e. 30 pupils per class. After consultations with the Local Education Authority, this figure was increased towards the end of 2014 to 226. This is brought about by a figure of 30 pupils per class (a legal limit) in Reception and Years 1 and 2, and a figure, for which there is no legal maximum, of 34 pupils per class in Years 3-6. The School is obviously under subscribed at the present time and any increase in pupil numbers and the funding that would follow would be welcomed as strengthening the school’s position. However, recent trends would confirm that whilst the senior classes are by no means full, the lower classes are filling up considerably and indeed it appears that the school may be over subscribed for September 2015 in the Reception class. Because of the historical low numbers, the school has been happy to accept pupils from far and wide and currently some 45% live outside the parish boundary. It is possible that any substantial increase in new houses resulting in many more children of primary school age might necessitate the introduction of a more defined catchment area to ensure priority for local children. The school site is such that it would not be possible to accommodate a two form entry, and this simple fact should be a major factor in how many new properties are to be built in the village. The school is particularly keen to be regarded as ‘good neighbours’ in the community and are concerned at the impact of parking by parents in the morning and the afternoon, which would only worsen as pupil numbers rise. It follows therefore that any increase in the availability of parking by the village hall would be beneficial, but bear in mind also that approximately only 30% of the current pupils i.e. 50 children either walk or cycle to school - a number of pavements in the village are in a poor state of repair which discourages their use by parents and any improvement here coupled with some dedicated and safe cycleways could be critical in encouraging parents out of their cars during the school run.
Meeting with Longwick Pre-School 16/03/2015 Those present: Brian Richards - Parish Steering Group Sam Wells - School Manager There are currently 25 children attending this school within Longwick Village Hall which now opens for 5 mornings and 3 afternoons. Whilst there was a suggestion from Ofsted recently that the accommodation could take in excess of 40 children, it is felt that 33/34 would be a desirable maximum, and this number in itself would of course require more staff and resources. At present, most families making use of the school live in the Longwick/Princes Risborough area but some attend from the Oxfordshire border and from near Aylesbury. Were there to be a great number of new houses built within the village, it is likely that some form of catchment area might have to be introduced although as the children only attend for a relatively short time, then phasing something in over a number of years would probably alleviate any pressures on numbers. As with the Primary School, there are the same concerns about car parking for parents, and also safety concerns about congestion at the junction of The Green with Thame Road.
1
The Red Lion Attended the January meeting in the Village Hall and submitted his own letter to Wycombe District Council regarding his concern of the flooding of the 'service ditch' behind the cottages at the rear of the pub that are occupied by members of his family. He and the family are happy to support the Village Development Plan. They are not concerned about increasing their business so are not looking for an increased village population. However they are concerned about the junction at Chestnut Way and would support any improvement to the junction. They are also concerned about the increase of traffic travelling through the village that would be outcome of the Longwick development and the Princes Risborough development.
Risborough Re-upholstery The general opinion of the owner and the employees (2) is that they are unaffected as they live outside the village - although they would welcome any increase in business. They would support the Village Development Plan but had no further comment to make.
Tracy's Cakes, Wheelwright Rd - felt that the Village Development Plan would not affect her business other than bring in more customers. However she wanted to raise a number of points concerning the impact of the proposed development area 1a and 1b - 1) she wished to draw attention to the standing water on the field to rear of the properties on Wheelwright Rd and in the gardens of her own and neighbouring properties 2) she wished to object to the positioning of the new houses too close to the rear boundary of her garden thus obscuring the view of the Chiltern hills 3) she was concerned about access to the site during building and wanted reassurance this would not be through Wheelwright Rd 4) she was concerned about access to the new houses and was given reassurance the plan was to provide a road off Thame Road and not through Walkers Road estate. 5) She expressed a concern that the new houses should be in character with existing village houses, that the view of the hills should be preserved and that houses should be spaced to preserve those views. She stated she was speaking on behalf of herself and her neighbours.
Daisy Chain - felt it would not affect the business in any way as the premises are only used for storage – the shop is in Princes Risborough.
Lamella Heating Supplies - have been to the premises twice and left a message on their answerphone but have not managed to make contact.
Post Office - have spoken to the manager of the Post Office. The family currently live at Hardwick and he would move instantly to Longwick if there was more affordable housing. As a business they would welcome more houses and are definitely of the view that they should be spread around the village rather than in one concentrated area. He is also of the opinion that better public transport links need to be provided with a bus to the station and more regular services to Risborough and Thame.
MacCabees - have only been able to contact the owner of Maccabees by email and have asked him to contact me or make his views known by replying to the generic email address.
2
Tea at Three (club) - most comments were made concerning existing parking problems throughout the village, with the following sites being mentioned: 1) Outside the Post Office - bearing in mind the new extension to the building which will displace the vehicles of the existing residents, plus neighbouring new properties are having problems with their drives being blocked by thoughtless drivers. 2) Concern about the trend to park on the pavement on the Thame Road north of Walkers Road. 3) Parking at the village hall that is used by parents collecting children from school - more capacity is required and an improvement to the footpath connecting the parking to the school gate. 4) Parking along Walnut Tree Lane and Dorrells Road by parents at school times, again blocking residents’ drives and access. Many commented on the need to improve and widen existing footpaths throughout the village, and s to preserve the views of existing houses and not to make new sites more densely built. Most commented on the potential increase of traffic with the village development and the proposed Princes Risborough enlargement and the need for further traffic calming. Some commented on the pressure on the existing doctors services with the Princes Risborough and Longwick developments and the need for a further practice.
Questionnaires completed by Women’s Institute (23 people)
Infrastructure - traffic volume and speed are considered to be the most important issue by far. Public transport was considered by many to be quite important with maintenance of footpaths and pavements also to be of very high importance. A good level of service by landowners and utility providers with regard to ensure that no flooding occurs with much better surface water, sewage and drainage treatment than at present was also considered to be important. Many commented that should housing increase, these facilities would fail. Unlike the hamlets, no one mentioned poor broadband, and cycling facilities and electricity supply attracted less importance than other categories.
Social facilities - The shop scored the highest level of importance and is seen as a vital lifeline and well regarded facility. Almost everyone mentioned the complete lack of medical support and most deemed this to be a necessary addition now notwithstanding any additional housing. A number of comments were made that the school would only need to increase in size should substantial housing numbers be built. The need for affordable and retirement housing scored medium importance, along with the need for improved leisure facilities. Most seemed to be of the opinion that current business facilities are about right for the size of the existing village.
Landscape and Wildlife - The message is loud and clear. Preserve and protect what we have now for the future by not allowing massive concentrated development.
Boundaries - Again there was almost maximum score from all participants that they wish above all things for the character of Longwick to be maintained with sympathetic development and for the village to remain separate from Princes Risborough and maintain its rural character. Most participants would support that 10+ houses should be built in the period 2015-2033.
The sports clubs and current activities (football and cricket):
3
No impact of development on the clubs as long as the playing field and changing facilities etc are protected. More housing should mean more potential members (they say that few of their members now live in the village). Existing facilities are adequate for what they do but improvements always welcome (rather than new\ extra). However, where they see real appeal is to widen the sports they can offer to broaden the potential membership base, in particular, tennis courts were mentioned.
Their only concerns related to protecting what is already there and any impact that increased traffic and population may have on the highway network, parking and local facilities.
Neighbourhood Watch Co-Ordinators Via Email 1. Infrastructure of the hamlets – some co-ordinators commented whereas other did not think it was applicable: Traffic – needs speed reductions. Footpaths need re-surfacing and widening. Cycling facilities are required alongside main roads to enable commuters to cycle to work/station to do so more safely. Public transport is required to Princes Risborough and further afield such as Thame in order to make onward journeys. Except for the Community Bus, Longwick require a proper bus service. Surface water, drainage and flooding needs attention, as the fields are low- lying therefore good drainage is required. Sewage system is inadequate – a major upgrade is needed. Electricity, Broadband and other utilities all need upgrading as inadequate with frequent disruption and unreliable.
2. Social Facilities within the Hamlets and wider Parish. Doctors, Dentists and other medical support will require more services especially with an increase in houses. Princes Risborough cannot cope now with the current provision provided. Schools and pre-schools- may need to have new or additional premises. Affordable housing – local young people/ families who were raised in the village cannot afford the high prices of housing in Longwick therefore they have to look elsewhere. Possibly a few retirement homes may be required. Leisure, recreation and sports facilities – more people will need facilities - especially for our young people otherwise anti-social behaviour may ensue. Business facilities/ hub in Longwick – It is vital to support our local business and to encourage more if new residents are to work locally in Longwick.
3. Landscape and Wildlife within the hamlets – to be protected.
4. Boundaries and historical development sites of the hamlets. Hamlet potential development sites - it is important for suitable potential development sites to be identified to stop speculative development. Employment opportunities and sites including agriculture - it is important to protect the green field sites again from speculative development. Separation between hamlets and built up areas – it is important to retain the rural feel and community living atmosphere. At present we must accept that Longwick is capable of supporting infill developments over a period of time with an average of 3/5 houses per year, as we currently have no infrastructure to support more, but certainly not the huge numbers speculatively proposed.
4
Appendix G: Hamlet Consultation, March & April 2015
Ilmer - 12 Meadle - 7 Little Meadle - 6 Horsenden - 0 Owlswick - 12
Infrastructure Traffic – To keep traffic to a minimum within the The speed limit down the whole of Stockwell Traffic – HGV traffic is causing a great deal of No responses offered Traffic – The roads both through and hamlet. The road surface is poor with many pot- Lane should be lowered as currently it is mostly damage to the Stockwell Lane and causes approaching Owlswick are very narrow, yet the holes regularly forming. Speed limit should be 60mph compared to 50mph along the Lower vibration to houses as they pass by. The approach roads are subject to the national speed restricted to 20mph to aid safety within the Icknield B4009. The 40mph speed limit at the collapsing road surface between Meadle and limit of 60 mph far too fast. The roads are ideal hamlet for drivers, cyclists and walkers. Cycling junction of Meadle & Stockwell Lane should be Ford causing dangerous adverse cambers & for cyclists and horse riders and are heavily used Facilities - very important. Footpaths, Pavements lowered to 20mph as it is a concealed turn in the long deep gutters. Speeding is too fast by them but they risk life and limb because of the and bridleways - very important. Surface Water, direction of Little Meadle. Increased volumes of especially if hacking and often exceeds 40 mph traffic using the lanes as a rat run. We are Drainage and Flooding - very important - housing locally is only going to exacerbate the limit. Hazards signs needed at approach to seriously concerned that developments in Flooding was a concern in 2014. Sewage – very traffic situation as it is a rat run. Coming in at a junctions. Stockwell Lane is a rat run to and from Longwick will cause serious problems with important. Electricity, Broadband & other utilities close second is broadband speed which is very Aylesbury. Footpaths, Pavements and additional traffic. Electricity and Broadband and –Broadband speeds are both slow and poor & was mentioned by everyone with one bridleways. Are very important for walking and other utilities are very important but are not very unreliable and have many power outrages. Long exception as a very important issue which needs hacking as forced to ride on roads as bridleways good because poor connections. way from the exchange. Fast broadband huge improvement . There have been many are not kept clear of mud, overgrown vegetation connections are important for the future. problems in Meadle in recent years with frequent and drainage is poor. Electricity, Broadband & power cuts & interruptions to the power supply other utilities. – Overhead utility is vulnerable – but since a task force was sent to the village often disruptions. Broad band very poor almost during the second half of 2014, there have been non-existent. Surface water/ drainage at own no further problems to date. Maintenance of cost- Drainage poor especially by bridleways. footpaths & bridle ways are also seen as a quite an important issue. Surface water, drainage & flooding along with sewage are viewed at about the same medium level of importance as above.
Social facilities Shopping Facilities & access No need for No specific issues raised. Not required within our small hamlet but within The inhabitants moved to this hamlet because of facilities within the hamlets – but support local the parish the Post Office/shop has all that is its quite rural nature, and accept that a lack of businesses including shop and Post Office in required. Social facilities are good. Running s facilities is inevitable in such a setting. Longwick. These are very useful commodities. business – Post Office may be useful. Doctors Need to ensure a broader range of shops is and Dentist are very important as extremely maintained in Princes Risborough not just difficult to get appointments for Doctors in hairdressers, cafes and charity shops. Doctors, Princes Risborough. For Dentists need to go to Dentists and other medical support - It is difficult Princes Risborough, Aylesbury or Thame. Little to get appointments now, so if the population Meadle is a tiny settlement should not be increases locally we will need more Doctors, expected to meet these needs within their Dentists and other provisions. Leisure, boundaries. recreation and Sports Facilities – Improvement in social facilities will serve to develop the hamlets and help them address shared issues with less reliance on external help
Wildlife and landscape Ilmer is a beautiful hamlet and sits within the both categories were deemed to be very Some of us are gardeners and bird watchers so Landscape settings and Wildlife and biodiversity conservation area so it is important that the important by all it is important to maintain and preserve. This is are very important, that is the attraction of living character of the village is preserved for future why we live in the countryside. Need to protect in this locality. generations. The residents moved here for our landscape and wildlife against inappropriate peace and tranquillity, open views of the development. countryside and enjoying the wildlife in gardens and surrounds.
Boundaries and historical Ilmer’s boundaries are well defined - no Hamlet potential development sites scored a It is important to keep separation between Owlswick can be traced back to the year 903, development sites compact housing developments and that is what very low score, with employment opportunities hamlets and built up areas. Any development the centre is a Conversation Area and the gives the village its character. Must be the hamlet boundaries & separation between would ruin our status as a hamlet. The character is dependent upon being surrounded preserved at all costs. hamlets & built up areas scored the highest level settlement is currently too small to be viable by farmland. We are all aware that the old of importance by all in the whole questionnaire Shoulder of Mutton is likely to be developed, but scoring slightly higher. it is essential that numbers of houses are limited and in keeping with the character of the rest of the hamlet.
New Development A possible small development depends on site; The hamlet boundaries & separation between 2 – 5 houses, more than this would increase size Houses to support 2 – 5, but 5 would almost design must be in character with the existing hamlets & built up areas scored the highest level of hamlet by 50 % and change its character double the size of the hamlet and are the hamlet structure and planned for. In the last 10 of importance by all in the whole questionnaire. maximum sustainable in this area. years there has been a number of new builds. Hamlet potential development sites scored a Between 5 – 10 houses. very low score, with employment opportunities scoring slightly higher. No-one supported more than 2-5 houses to be built between now & 2033 & most chose 0-2 category with absolutely no new build being unanimous across the board, & only sympathetic conversions in keeping with the historical appearance of the village to be considered . APPENDIX H
Feedback from Steering Group attendees at Village Fete, 2 May 2015, Longwick
There was a steady flow of visitors to the stall and another 27 email addresses for the Consult Group.
The majority of visitors were from the Walkers Road area (having just had received letters advising them of the Bellwood Homes initiative and the drop-in event on 11th May). Especially interested were those who would be direct neighbours to Sites OS1 and 1a (4 - 10 Wheelwright Road and 8 Sawmill Road). The consensus here seemed to be that they would prefer the land to the rear of their properties to include first some trees and then amenity land including the surface water mitigation and SUDs pond, then a road, and on the other side of which would be the fronts of new houses. Rather than rear gardens of new properties as has been shown on the latest indicative layout from Bellwood. It would include some at least of the area shown as at most risk from surface water flooding.
Some comments on car parking, in particular to assist the shop but without compromising the road. Lots of comments about having the right housing to encourage/ accommodate the young and families rather than older people. On same note, several comments on retirement type housing so that those in the village/ area can downsize but stay where they love to be.
A few people from outside the area that commented they would love to move here (and visit the fete often) but the lack of available housing (affordability not mentioned) is preventing them.
The group of people most vocal with objections and opinions are the folk who live in Wheelwright Road backing on to OS1, 1a and 1b. They have expressed very strong objections to having houses backing onto their gardens as suggested by Bellwood and concern about the land drainage problem of standing water.
The owner of Macabee Kennels expressed concern at the closeness of the rear boundary of Site 1b in regard to animal noise at exercise times throughout the day.
High number of references to houses catering for down-sizing older residents, plus comments requesting something for younger people. Discussion of SG suggestion of tennis court and hard surfaced area for basketball and netball.
The Zip Wire, Skateboard Park, Multi-Games Hoop/Goal and Teen Shelter, the police like to be able to easily see if there is anyone around these areas, from the car parking area. Occasionally there have been problems with anti-social behaviour. So to enable this type of view it suggests that at least some of the existing hedgerow and trees between Mr Rixon’s land and the current recreation ground would need to come out. The PC has commissioned a tree survey for all around the recreation ground.
Lots of comments about how the village needs a bit of life and thus affordable starter homes would be welcomed for younger people; and likewise for those who like living here but can't downsize locally as they get older. Some retirement type homes would also be welcomed. Anything to improve traffic concerns is high up on most people's agendas. Appendix H: Neighbourhood Plan News Update – April 2015
The Steering Group has been hard at work on preparatory stages of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Draft visions and objectives and potential sites and site selection criteria were recommended to and agreed by the Parish Council on 17th March. At that stage just the sites around the centre of Longwick village shown by the Wycombe District Council Longwick Capacity Report of February 2015 were agreed for the consultation stage of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Initial engagement with the hamlets within the Parish was completed during March and April, as these settlements were not within the scope of the District Council’s Capacity Study.
Questionnaires were distributed by contacts within each hamlet. Overall, 37 questionnaires were returned: 12 from Ilmer; 12 from Owlswick, 7 from Meadle and 6 from Little Meadle. No responses were received from Horsenden.
From those that responded, there was general agreement on infrastructure issues, such as traffic, drainage and flooding, power outages and broadband speed. Similarly, wildlife and landscape, and peace and tranquillity were important in all hamlets. The Conservation Areas were valued highly and respondents wished their characters to be preserved.
Regarding the potential for growth, responses varied as may be expected. However some respondents in Ilmer, Owlswick and Little Meadle were prepared to accept a small amount of new housing. In Meadle, residents wished to see only sympathetic conversions of existing buildings, and no new-build dwellings.
Further engagement will take place to establish whether there are any specific sites suitable for development, subject to the comments made already and assessments by Wycombe District Council.
In addition, meetings with 15 key interested ‘Stakeholder’ parties have been held with Steering Group members. These include Longwick Church of England Combined School, Longwick Pre-School, Scouts, Women’s Institute, Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinators, Tea at Three and 9 businesses in Longwick.
Responses from these meetings mirrored those comments received at the District Council’s consultation in October last year: concerns on car parking, traffic and speeds, road junction and footway improvements, better cycling routes, public transport, flooding and drainage, importance of the Post Office and shop, retention of character including views from existing properties to the open countryside and Chiltern Hills, separation from Prince Risborough, preservation and protection of landscape and wildlife, development not to be approved at high density, electricity and broadband services improvements, school capacity and catchments, increased demand for doctors, dentists, affordable housing and mixture of housing types, and better recreation and sports facilities such as tennis, netball and basketball.
The new email account [email protected] now has over 50 subscribers to the Consult Group. If you have not received this News Update by email directly, you can register your interest by request.
A new Neighbourhood Plan page on the Council’s website: http://www.longwickcumilmer.org.uk/ should be set up during May. Look out for this as it will hold an expanding list of documents and relevant material for the plan process. Notes of meetings will continue to be posted on the Longwick notice boards.
Councillors and Steering Group members will be available at a Parish Council stall at the Fete, 2nd May, on the Recreation Ground. You can ask questions and see maps of the existing planning policies and constraints for the Parish, and the Longwick potential development sites. Drafting the Neighbourhood Plan itself is about to start. If all goes well, formal consultation should follow in June and July. The next few months will be a very important time. Once again, the Parish Council encourages you to get involved in this process, to help guide the development of our community. Why are we doing a Parish Neighbourhood Plan?
As part of Wycombe District Council’s (WDC) review of its Local Plan, it undertook consultation and held a drop-in event in October 2014. Consultants Tibbalds had been engaged to look at how Longwick might develop in the future, and if there was any capacity for the village to grow, what would be the best way forward for that to happen. The intention was that WDC would use the findings from this “Longwick Capacity Study” to help inform the consideration of planning applications and to feed into the Local Plan.
The consultation drew extensive and remarkably consistent comments from the community. The main response indicated that some modest additional housing could be acceptable, especially if spread across several small sites rather than concentrated on one large site. This reflected the considerable objections submitted to an application for up to 175 dwellings with access from Boxer Road and Barn Road (off Chestnut Way).
The Parish Council did not wish to see Longwick or the wider Parish change in response to speculative planning applications. A public meeting was arranged by the Parish Council on 13th January 2015 to consider whether a Neighbourhood Plan should be prepared.
Planning Officers from WDC attended the meeting to explain how a Neighbourhood Plan might assist. The meeting was very well attended: about 140 people filled the Village Hall. The Planning Officers explained that the District Council has a shortfall in its ‘Five Year Housing Land Supply’. Essentially insufficient permission for housing development had been granted in the District to meet new government targets. Whilst WDC was working on reducing that shortfall, rural areas outside the Green Belt and Chilterns’ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty were particularly vulnerable to speculative planning applications.
The aim of a Neighbourhood Plan is that a community agrees a framework for development, subject to certain conditions such as new open space and amenities, improved road junctions, footways and cycle routes, and contributions to other community projects. In other words, how we would like to see the community develop, rather than development be almost imposed on us from speculative applications where we would have little influence.
Those present at the meeting gave almost unanimous support for the Parish Council to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council applied to WDC for the designation of the whole Parish as a Neighbourhood Planning Area, and after due consultation period on this, WDC confirmed the application on 2nd March.
Meanwhile WDC had published the final report of the Longwick Capacity Study. This is available from: http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/new-local-plan/our-rural-areas.aspx
A Steering Group was convened from three Parish Councillors and three co-opted members of the community, to carry out preliminary work and make recommendations to the full Parish Council on the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council agreed to use the sites and site criteria shown in the Capacity Study for inclusion in the Draft Plan.
During March and April, the Steering Group engaged with hamlets and stakeholders. The hamlets had not been within scope of the WDC Capacity Study. A good response was received through this engagement and a summary is included in the April edition of the Neighbourhood Plan Update, available separately.
Professional support is being commissioned to assist in the Neighbourhood Plan work. The next steps are very important.
These are: Draft Plan prepared and Parish Council to consider approval in May; publication of Draft Plan and six week consultation period in June and July; revisions considered and included in Submission version of Plan; publication of Submission version by WDC and six week consultation period in late July and August; independent ‘examination’ in September; six week referendum period in October and November.
The process will culminate with a decision shortly after the end of the referendum period. A simple majority of those that vote will carry the day - whether the Plan is 'made' or not. If there is a majority in favour, the Plan will be made and will become part of the ‘Development Plan’ framework. This means that any subsequent planning applications must conform to the policies of the Plan, along with the policies of the District Council’s Local Plan and other current planning policy.
The Parish Council encourages all residents and businesses within the Parish to be involved and contribute to the Plan. It realises that for some, ideally there would be no development at all. However that is not an option for us. Some development is inevitable and the Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared to help us have control over how and where this happens. It also allows us to specify where benefits need to be included with or associated with development.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan
Site L1A: 0.9 hectare in size, for around 11-18 new residential units, subject to further surveys. Site L1B: 1 hectare in size, for around 12-20 new residential units, reduced from the Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Plan figures of 19-32 units on 1.62 hectares, and subject to further surveys.
Site L2: 2.5 hectares in size, for around 30- 50 new residential units, subject to further surveys. Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan
Site L3: 1 hectare in size, for around 12-20 new residential units, subject to further surveys.
Sites L4a, b and c: 1.05 hectares size in total, for around 13-21 new residential units, subject to further surveys. APPENDIX K
Comments received in open questions to questionnaire (Other:) As the majority of views supported this section of the Plan, it has been amended as appropriate. Q1 Do the vision and objectives in Section 4 represent your ideas for the Parish in the future?
I think the plan's objectives are OK, but there is little mention of travelling in the direction of Thame just Princes Risborough. There are many children in the village that go to Lord Williams school and travelling to and from Thame from Longwick is virtually impossible making a car essential. I realise this is probably a cross Noted, although Thame is further away and buses to Princes Risborough are county issue but it would be good to have this on the plan for the future. more deliverable.
In part I do not agree with the propposed residential allocation in Ilmer None proposed.
I strongly endorse the point about being consistent with the school capacity. With regard to item 3, flooding, I Wording included in shorter form believe the final sentence of this section should be modified to read: “Where there are areas with flood risks, development will need to follow the sequential test as a first principle, and avoid areas where the flood risk is assessed as Medium or High. Local biodiversity and social amenity should be enhanced.” With regard to item 4, utilities, add to this para: “No new development should be permitted until utility services have been brought up to an acceptable standard.” With regard to item 9, Housing and Sustainable Development, there is a need for a counter‐balancing statement here. I suggest: “The scale of housing development should be New policy A5 addresses this issue. commensurate with employment opportunities in the local area, and seek to avoid the village becoming a dormitory village.”
I AM IN FAVOUR OF EACH LOCATION BUT ON A SMALLER SCALE Noted
The vision and objectives are wonderful. However they conflict with what is achieveable and even with the Noted rest of the plan in some key areas.
The consultation sought to understand issues in Ilmer, and whether any sustainable proposals could be put forward. But the Plan considers that it It is simply about Longwick ‐ we in Ilmer are sidelined. is an unsustainable location for new housing growth.
There should be further sites behind the Rose farm ones and behind Walkers Road and The Tibbalds Study criteria included access off Thame Road and the Wheelwright Road. linear nature of the village, so not included.
I would prefer sites 1 and 4 to be smaller Noted
Site L3 should not be included Noted
In addition it should aspire to attract young families to come to live these young people are everyone’s future and can breathe new life into a community Included
Longwick Parish should have no more building until all issues of flooding are resolved. Included
Proposed development of hundreds more homes to the NW of Pr.Risborough will impact on Longwick with regard to water table/spring line/surface water run‐off and foul water dispersal. We will not know/or be able to assess our situation until after that development takes place. Our settlements geographic position puts us at particular risk of increased problems with flooding. Noted
Partly – I suggest large scale development between Rose Farm and the railway with allowance for proper strategic infrastructure/additional facilities and not just piecemeal The Tibbalds Study criteria included access off Thame Road and the in‐filling as present proposals. linear nature of the village, so not included. I feel that the Barn Road through to walnut tree is the best option for the village as any new houses here would mean the residents could walk to the school, village hall, scout hut, football pitch, cricket pitch, swings and play areas without crossing any main rds. Also £750,000 promised by the Agents to Longwick Village is what is needed. I have heard that these fields flood which is total untrue as I have lived here for 66 years and walked the fields for years. Most of the people that are blocking this site being developed have only lived a short will in the village and usually move on. Having four different sites on the plan means four different lots of gas, water, telecom, drains, The Tibbalds Study criteria included access off Thame Road and the digging up the road in four places. linear nature of the village, so not included.
Since the Bell Farm Estate phase 1 was built in the 1970’s it was known that phases 2 & 3 would be built to infill land between Williams Way/Boxer Rd and Walnut Tree Lane and the railway. I consider this to be appropriate. As for noise from the railway there does not seem to be any problems selling houses in Williams Way. Policy A4, we are a The Tibbalds Study criteria included access off Thame Road and the village surrounded by green fields with plenty of footpaths. linear nature of the village, so not included.
I do not support the addition of any homes unless a proper flood level assessment is completed to improve the current situation. The assessment should also include the effects of the proposed Princes Risborough Plan. Issues concerning flooding/sewerage and the variable electricity supply should all be addressed before Village Plan is adopted. Noted
Section 4 presents an attractive picture of what the Parish could be like in the future. It is however aspirational, and I think a little caution is needed in ‘selling’ the neighbourhood plan on this basis. Noted Q2 Do you support re‐drawing the settlement boundary for Longwick to include only the four centrally located potential sites, to preserve its separation from Princes Risborough?
As the majority of views were in favour of this proposal, the Plan includes it Yes, especially unhappy about L3 along Risborough Road Noted
The Tibbalds Study considered the shape of the village, and that this area had a The settlement boundary leaves out existing built development on Thame Road. Why? different character, so it is not included. village boundary as above
The Rose farm sites a & b should not be allocated for developmenT noted
Maintaining separation from Princes Risborough is essential to retain the village character Included in Policy A3
It would be possible to include additional development to the four sites while preserving the The Plan allows for 'windfall' development, and defines a gap to preserve its separation from Longwick? separation too.
I FEEL IT WOULD BE BETTER TO SPREAD ACROSS THE VILLAGE ON A SMALLER SCALE noted
While I support the separation from Risborough, I do not support all four potential sites. This is a loaded question noted
The boundary should include sites mentioned by me in #1 above. noted
There may be other sites in the village which could be considered. Separation from Princes The Plan allows for 'windfall' development, and defines a gap to preserve its Risborough is important. separation too.
If the village development included land off Williams Way/Barn Road, attachment to P.Risb. The Tibbalds Study criteria included access off Thame Road and the linear nature would not be necessary. of the village, so not included.
Policy A3. This will automatically be achieved if and when the Risborough by‐pass is finally built. The plans for Princes Risborough are not yet determined, and so Longwick needs Otherwise the B4009 and the stream at Alscot Dell are further barriers. to be reviewed independently.
Not relevant for years to come! Noted
I don’t think re‐drawing the settlement boundary to include only the 4 centrally located sites The Plan if it is formally adopted will create a new policy context for Longwick, will have any impact on this issue. that Wycombe District will use to determine planning applications. Q3 Do you support a larger setback of 35m between the backs of the existing homes on Wheelwright Road and the backs of possible future homes on the adjacent development site? Current housing policy recommends a minimum of 25m distance.
As the majority of views were in favour of this proposal, the Plan includes it. I live in Wheelwright Road, and my house faces the proposed development. I clearly strongly object to any Noted, and the Plan includes the setback to deal with flooding and amenity issues. building taking place on plot L1 for the obvious reasons that it will destroy our surrounding completely. We requested a larger setback which of course I agree with, but I really do not want this at all. The plan talks about how to maintain the feel of the village on this site, it will destroy my views. I don't want these houses built. The field is completely prone to flooding. I'm living in fear of this going through.
The plan would be improved if the green space, OS1, were turned through 90 degrees and ran Noted, although WDC were concerned about the privacy of existing homes in this across the area. back of the existing houses in Wheelwright Road. This will lend itself to the incorporation of the necessary flood mitigation measures, as it is that area behind Wheelwright Road which is at medium risk of surface water flooding and its drainage route runs north‐westwards to the northeast of the site.
I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE ACCESS AND THE POTENTIAL OF FLOODING WHEN WE HAVE EXTREME Noted WEATHER CONDITIONS
Would rather see a water attenuation/landscape strip and then road to the rear of Wheelwright Noted, although WDC were concerned about the privacy of existing homes in this Road area. properties
No, This would estrict number of affaordable house that could be built on this site Noted
Delete this site due to very high flooding risks 1a and 1b should be deleted. Thames Water/Environment Agency map shows area very prone to flooding. Noted, and surveys and mitigation measures will determine the site's suitability.
25m seems adequate. Noted
25m is reasonable but possibly 30m if land is available. Noted
Follow current housing policy of 25m. Noted
No building at all on this site when better site available. Noted Q4 Do you support having new homes fronting onto the rear of the existing Thame Road/ Chestnut Way properties across a landscaped area with a water attenuation pond and footpath?
As the majority of views were in favour of this proposal, the Plan includes it. I DO NOT support policy L3 ‐ land on Thame Rd South of Chestnut Way. This area is not large enough to Noted for L3 (not L2), and the road safety issues are inlcuded in the Plan. build the vol of houses specified and it is dangerously close to the garage and roundabout and also the fork junction to chestnut way. All these junctions are extremely busy and adding two entrances to housing will definitely cause accidents
No, Houses should be rotated so that the back gardens are facing the back gardens of the existing The Plan inlcudes the open space as a way of adding greater public amenity to properties this area, than rear gardens onto the open strip of land. yes, as long as there are a sufficient increase in facilities to support more houses Noted
Might it not be possible to extend this development site to include the land up to the Noted for L3, but the Tibbalds report considered the site, and determined that roundabout, which might only the area east of Chestnut Way was suitable. provide community space & sports facilities and better meet the future housing requirements.
I AM IN FAVOUR OF THIS DEVELOPEMENT BUT ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE TO ELIMINATE THE Noted
WATER POND. I FEEL THIS WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS NEXT TO THE VILLAGE PLAYING FIELDS. WE SHOULD NOT PUT CHILDREN IN DANGER OF DROWNING...AND WE ALL KNOW THAT CHILDREN ARE DRAWN TO WATER.
The Plan inlcudes the open space as a way of adding greater public amenity to No, they should be backing on, not frontingon otherwise OK. this area, than rear gardens onto the open strip of land.
The N corner of the Boxer Rd/Barn Road site (L2) would provide off‐street parking for the shop and the school. It would also make traffic management easier for the fete etc. The surface of the car park would be permeable and with a smaller housing development there would be less risk of flooding. Noted, and see section on parking (Q7)
Use area as a village car park, will be required for parents bringing children to school and for village events ie fete. Noted, and see section on parking (Q7)
Careful thought needs to be given to extra traffic exiting near The Red Lion or railway bridge end of Chestnut Way. Noted
Impact study of traffic at Thame Rd and Chestnut Way and B4009. Noted
The footpath should go along the immediate frontage of the new housing to preserve some of the privacy currently enjoyed by the existing Thame Rd/Chestnut Way properties. Noted
This is very poor agricultural land and development described would enhance the area and provide a safe footpath to all village amenities. Noted
If this is the Boxer Road/Barn Road extension, I think this is the better option. Path straight to school and no need to cross road , and only one entrance. Noted Q5 Do you agree with the allocation of the three small Rose Farm frontage sites? As the majority of views were in favour of the site allocation, the Plan includes this location. 4C/4B yes, low density to protect current planting and managed flood risk Noted
as above "yes, as long as there are a sufficient increase in facilities to support more houses" Noted
Would be great to replace leylandii with smaller, more appropriate hedging, not necessarily housing Noted
This allocation seems contrary to the green gap principle and might lead to further development parallel to Noted walnut tree lane.
Noted, but these are the Leylandii described in the Plan, which are unpopular ONLY ON A SMALL SCALE AND IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO LOSE THE PINE TREES locally.
Use area as additional car parking. Noted, but see section on parking Q7
Remove Leylandii but do not develop L4c; L4a and L4b could be developed. Noted
Leave as open frontage and develop behind them further from the road. Noted, and the policy makes allowance for this different character.
One way traffic flow into and out of the development to adjoin Thame Rd. Noted, although this would require the sites to be interlinked.
At least they are on the W side of the Thame Rd, allowing safer access to the school and playing field/village hall. Noted
The Tibbalds report recommended smaller sites to be consistent with the village's We need one larger, not lots of smaller sites, as too much disruption and road junctions. historical development. Q6 Do you support the provision of allweather, permeable loose‐surface footpaths as indicated through the village playing field, as indicated in the Plan Policy L2, or just to it?
As the majority of views were in favour of footpaths just 'to it', the Plan does not make provision for other options. But only through the existing stream boundary. Noted
Pathway should stay on hedge‐line of the sports field only. Low level solar lighting should be included on the pathway. Noted
But only if Plan Policy L2 is developed.
Footpaths already in place why do we need more? This was proposed to overcome periods when the paths become very muddy.
To it from L4 then close along side of existing stream Noted
To it Noted Q7 Is more car parking needed in the centre of Longwick, if so where should it be?
As the majority of views were not in favour of additional parking in the village, At Village Hall esp if we can obtain the extra recreational land as proposed on Plan OS2 as the and it would not support its sustainability in the future, the Plan does not school uses make provision for extra parking. this as well as hall and hut users so desperate need of more parking as sch reaches capacity etc.
Reluctant to encroach on the playing fields but the documents mention the possibility of moving the current play equipment in which case some additional parking could be carved out of the current playground. You might consider whether there could be spaces created in L2 across the existing footpath from OS2. Would L4(a) be close enough to the school to relieve some congestion at peak times?
No ‐ the village has no central point with amenities and the few we have are within walking The Plan makes reference in Section 6 to a potential study of Thame Road, which distance of may provide opportunities for safer parking at the shop, than at present residents. Only pinch point is traffic parked on Thame Road during school peak hours and by users of the village store. re‐ design the existing council lay‐by in thame road , just along , and on same side , from entrance to village hall and playing field.
The parking issues at the school may be linked to the very low level of walking to school at present, partly as a result of there being poor footways in the village, However, there should be more parking available for the school, perhaps on a nearby field. but also due to large numbers of pupils not living within walking distance of the The traffic up to school (i.e. Princes Risborough). the school on Walnut Tree is too dangerous. Recently a child was run over near the school and a parent's car was reversed into.
The Plan makes reference in Section 6 to a potential study of Thame Road, which Parking for shop needed off road may provide opportunities for safer parking at the shop, than at present
I don't know where but there should be playing field Noted near the school near post office / walnut tree lane
The playing field is proposed in the Plan as a Local Green Space to protect is in the future, but also as extending parking there would impinge upon sports In the Village Hall area, could the existing park be widended and 2 rows fitted in? pitches (including cricket).
In an area around the Village Hall,perhaps widen the existing and make 2 rows or behind it Noted
Demand is at the school and village hall but only land nearby is playing field or school field Noted
The soccer and cricket pitches should both be moved closer to the Boxer Road end to allow more car parking Noted space on either side of the access to the Village Hall. along the main road Noted as above Central Noted as above
Land off playing field Noted as above
In the middle Noted as above
Centrally
Near the Post Office Noted as above
IF THE NUMBER OF HOUSES WAS DECREASED IN BARN ROAD/WILLIAMS WAY YOU COULD Noted as above
EXTEND THE CAR PARK AT THE VILLAGE HALL AND EXTEND THE FIELD INTO THE SPACE BEHIND BRIANTS AND HAMPTON COTTAGE. ALSO A TWO TENNIS COURTS WOULD BE VERY WIDELY USED AT THE REAR OF THE FIELD
The School to prevent congestion in Walnut Tree Lane Noted as above to the NE of the Local Green Space on Policy L2 Noted as above
As central as possible, perhaps extending Village Hall capacity Noted as above
Expand parking at village hall with sineage for use by people using post office Noted as above
Car park to elevate (? alleviate) parking in Walnut Tree Lane in school time.
The N corner of Boxer Rd/Barn Rd (L2). This would provide off‐street parking for the shop and the school. It would also make traffic management easier for the fete etc. The surface of the car park would be permeable and with a smaller housing development there would be less risk of flooding. Noted as above
There is only one village shop and one pub so extra parking not necessary. Noted
Utilise space behind village hall. Noted as above
Parking is an issue particularly nr Post Office where large vehicles stop. This is opposite entrance to village hall on a busy road, options limited but a reduction (20mph) in speed limit would help. Noted as above
More space is needed close to village shop but there is no space in the vicinity, except the playing field area – then there will be road crossing problems. Noted
Not at present and even an increase could be met straight away by parking at community centre (needs better sign posting and potentially yellow lines on road leading to it to preserve access). Noted
As near village hall as possible. Noted as above
Extend the parking near the village hall. Noted as above
Near Shop Noted as above
Needed for shop/post office. Possibly requires road changes/frontage to housing changes. Noted as above
Near village hall as possible. Noted as above
Yes but I can’t see how/where. Noted
Yes for village hall and school/scout events; take space from behind village hall and top of school playing field; provide gateway into school grounds. Noted as above
Extend existing car park to double width. Noted as above
Next to the village hall. Present car park is not adequate when a function at village hall/playing field – A4129 is almost blocked. Why can part of the school field not be set aside for parents dropping off/collecting children as is used for Longwick Art Show? Noted as above Double the parking by the village hall and move the cricket pitch over, which is hardly used by villagers anyway. Noted as above
One of the small developments closest to the village shop be allocated for parking. Noted as above
Where do you call the centre of the village? This is defined in the Tibbalds diagram in the Plan.
I don’t think that parking on Thame Rd. is a major problem, and in any case I can’t see where a useful prking space could be provided in the centre of Longwick. However, I think it is important that any new houses built have off‐road parking for 2 cars Noted Q8 Would some street lighting be appropriate in Longwick’s new and existing streets for greater pedestrian and cycle safety, or is maintaining dark skies more important?
There is street lighting on Summerleys Lane (only a handful of houses) so I think the amount of As the majority of views were not in favour of street lighting, the Plan does not houses in Longwick definitely warrant it. make provision for it.
Between shop and Bar Lane. Noted
Preferably none but existing paving needs improving – these walkways are in too poor condition to walk in dark or bad weather. Most houses have/fit security floodlights in residential parts of the village. Noted
Village life is defined by NOT having street lighting which is why we live here. Noted
None ‐ apart from those already installed near to the village hall. This is a village not a town. Noted
We are a village not a town. Noted
I like the dark!! I would oppose street lighting throughout the village, but if there are locations which, for safety reasons are considered particularly important, appropriate lighting should be considered. Noted. Q9 Early consultation suggested that the development of 5‐10 new homes in the hamlet of Ilmer may be acceptable. Would you support that?
As the majority of views were in favour of some homes, the Plan considered Ilmer as a location, but does not make provision for housing there as it remains an unsustainable location. No – would bring more traffic to Thame Rd. Noted
See no reason for (? against?) sympathetic development of this sort but not 6‐bedroom mansions!! Noted
Noted, the questionnaire did not seek to differentiate between residents of Surely this should be decided by the people who live in Ilmer. different hamlets.
If Ilmer villagers want it. Noted, but the location of the hamlet means that it is an unsustainable location.
It is up to the people of Ilmer to answer this question. Noted as above
Ilmer has already seen significant development (barn conversions) over 10 in 20 years. NO more please. Noted
I think any building in Ilmer should be left to the residents to decide. Noted Q10 If yes, should this be done by putting an outline around the whole settlement to allow this be determined site‐by‐site, OR by allocating a specific site with design principles?
As the majority of views were in favour of some homes, the Plan considered Ilmer as a location, but does not make provision for housing there as it remains an unsustainable location. Whole settlement is most fair to everyone living there. Noted
Existing maps do not identify areas available. Noted Q11 If this should be a specific site allocation, where should that be?
As the majority of views were in favour of some homes, the Plan considered Ilmer as a location, but does not make provision for housing there as it remains an unsustainable location. I don't live in Ilmer so can't comment
The Plan identifies locations where the isolated character of the hamlets is most evident, i.e. adjacent or approaching them, where new buildings would need to on the approach to Ilmer ensure that this characteristic is unchanged.
Within the village area
Not sure
Not enough info in plan
The Plan identifies locations where the isolated character of the hamlets is most evident, and this is adjacent to them, where conversions would need to ensure Next to and Within the village that this is unchanged.
Within the village
Within the village
A sustainable location Noted as above
Judge each sites when put forward
Ilmer Meadows
NOWHRE NEAR THE CHURCH OR POND, TUCKED AWAY
Area near the railway bridge.
Build around the PR railway station the only extra housing should be for the elderly. (??) Noted as above
The hamlets currently do not have fixed settlement boundaries, only Infill within the current Hamlet boundaries. Conservation Areas, which the Plan refers to.
Beyond the railway bridge adjoining bridleway opposite Severalls Farm Noted as above
L2 because it is enclosed and can go to boundary no further This site is in Longwick, not Ilmer.
The Thame Rd approach into the village adjoining the existing homes already fronting the road. Noted as above. APPENDIX K ‐ SUMMARY OF WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE Q12 Is there anything that we may have missed that could be in the Neighbourhood Plan?
Traffic and Transport Issues
Please add request for reduced speed limit (30) along lower Icknield way from the garage roundabout and to summerly rd or at least chestnut way. Lower Icknield way is part of the village and it is essential motorists respect residents ‐ currently it's used as a race track and people have already been killed by the train bridge. This has been included in the Improvements section (6).
The longwick round ‐ about, needs clear road markings , when being approached from princes risborough indicating lane for left turn (to chinnor) and garage and straight ahead and right turn. ( several accidents and near misses could be avoided.) This has been included in the Improvements section (6).
The Plan does not consider a by‐pass as it is more important to Too much traffic travels through the village on the Thame Road and building more houses will add to this. consider sustainable modes of transport, and Thame Road could Can a bypass be created from between Kingsey and Ilmer up to Icknield way towards Risborough to make be studies further to look at improvements (see Improvements in the village safer and quieter and prevent heavy noisy lorries travelling through the village. section 6)
Good that need for improved walking/cycling routes and bus services has been recognised but concerned based on letter from council that there is a lack of ambition in this regard particularly with the need for a The letter from the County Council indicated the medium term better bus service. It's not acceptable to say current use doesn't warrant more services.....if there were planning assumptions for public transport in the area, which is more services more people could use them, especially secondary school age children! included within the Plan as a key issue for housing growth.
yes, there must be speed restriction measures along thame road, particularly the northern end where people are often driving at 50+ mph and the houses vibrate when lorries speed. It is a danger to all. Noted as above
A by‐pass taking the A4129 from the Sportsman's roundabout to a point on the Thame side of Longwick Noted as above
Insufficient evidence is available on why this new road link should Vehicle Exit to Williams way from L2 development. The 1987 application needs to be challenged and this be included in the Plan. It is possible that the development traffic entrance / exit to the field made available as a vehicle access for any future housing development would not use it, as it is less direct.
Infrastructure improvements have to happen and new transport links not just for a period of 5 years and at rush hour times only. The Plan acknowledges this.
Much greater emphasis on the existing urgent need for a week round proper bus service. The Plan acknowledges this.
Build a car park for school use behind village hall instead of a play area which we have anyway. Noted as above in the parking section (Q7)
A really efficient bus service will be vital to support our village The Plan acknowledges this.
The Plan focusses on the future which is positive, however the current issues of parking, speeding and lack ofThe Plan acknowledges this and aims to address this as a first public transport between Risboro/Thame/Oxford/Wycombe require addressing. step in Longwick's growth.
If development is to be instigated then traffic calming between white gates on Thame Rd through to Briants is a necessity – needs to be effective not just a sign with a smiley face on it, needs similar road bumps to entry to Chinnor or Long Crendon (both ways required). Noted.
Re‐configure junction of Thame Rd/Chestnut Way to make safer T‐junction and protect entrance to Pub. This has been included in the Improvements section (6).
This has been included in the Improvements section (6) under a Road crossing on island close to Briants. study of Thame Road itself.
Better local transport. Noted
A traffic impact study is needed for junction Thame Rd/Chestnut Way/B4009. These are congested presently at peak times and would be a major problem with danger potential. Noted
Any development MUST depend on suitable infrastructure being put in place to make the community sustainable. The Plan acknowledges this.
A path along Summerleys Rd allowing pedestrian access to Risboro’ station. The Plan acknowledges this.
Pedestrian /cycle path between Longwick and Princes Risborough Station (Icknield Way/Summerleys Rd). The Plan acknowledges this.
Flooding Longwick Parish should have no more building until all issues of flooding are assessed The Plan acknowledges this.
Section 3.3 on page 9, sub‐para ix. (Flooding). There is a need to bring out that some areas of the village are at medium risk of flooding. I suggest add to final sentence of this sub‐para: “paths and some areas of the village are assessed at being at medium risk of surface water flooding.” The Plan includes this.
Section 3.8 on pages 12‐13. To this list should be added: “Managing Flood Risk (100‐101)” Section 4.2 on page 15, para 3. Final sentence of this para to be amended to read: “Where there are areas with flood risks, development will need to follow the sequential test as a first principle, and avoid areas where the flood risk is assessed as Medium or High. Local biodiversity and social amenity should be enhanced.” The Plan includes this.
Landscape \ open space Issues
Policy L1, page 23 and supporting map. The plan would be improved if the green space, OS1, were turned through 90 degrees and ran across the back of the existing houses in Wheelwright Road. This will lend itself to the incorporation of the necessary flood mitigation measures, as it is that area behind Wheelwright Road which is at medium risk of surface water flooding and its drainage route runs north‐westwards to the northeast of the site. Noted earlier.
Moving the War Memorial to a site where it would be more prominent and also safer for people to congregate around without blocking pavements or standing one the edge of roads This has been included in the Improvements section (6).
Provision of a Longwick Village Green to give the linear village a centre point and place of interest. Junction This has been included in the Improvements section (6) as part of of Bell Crescent and Chestnut Way. a potential study of Thame Road.
Conservation of large trees in the village, especially the stand of Poplars at Rose Farm site. The Plan includes this.
This has been included in the Improvements section (6) as part of Establish village green opposite Red Lion pub and move War Memorial there. a potential study of Thame Road.
This has been included in the Improvements section (6) as part of Longwick should have a village central point maybe opposite the Red Lion pub, in effect a small village green a potential study of Thame Road.
Pretty good overall. We should take the opportunity to develop a proper village green or centre. Use the space opposite the Red Lion, re‐align the Chestnut Way/Thame Rd junction and possibly have the war This has been included in the Improvements section (6) as part of memorial there as a centre=piece. Add a suitable work of art. a potential study of Thame Road.
While having made comments earlier (in the questionnaire) we would like to add how important we feel it is to use this opportunity to enhance the appearance of the village. In this respect we are very keen that thought is given to ensure the most is made of the open space opposite Walkers. Also bear in mind the existing approach into Longwick from the garage on the right hand side is impressive and any development of this site should not lessen the impact. We are very much in favour of opening up the area in Chestnut WayThis has been included in the Improvements section (6) as part of opposite The Red Lion – much could be mad of this. a potential study of Thame Road.
This has been included in the Improvements section (6) as part of Creation of a village green and reloaction of the war memorial on land opposite the Red Lion a potential study of Thame Road.
Amenity enhancement issues The Plan acknowledges this and it is included in the There is no fibre optic broadband in Ilmer which is essential Improvements section (6).
More consideration to the services required to support future development, including access to doctors, local shopping facilities, required improvements to electricity supply, drainage, traffic calming measures on The Plan acknowledges this and it is included in the Thame Road. Improvements section (6).
The Plan acknowledges this and it is included in the New shops/restaurants, transport, Internet connections Improvements section (6).
High speed internet web connection Noted as above
Renewable energy and high speed internet The Plan acknowledges this.
Shops, pubs, doctors surgery, high speed internet, sports facilities Noted as above
Upgraded telephones so we can have proper hi‐speed broadband. We also need solar renewable energy as itThe Plan acknowledges this and it is included in the is not as unsightly as a large wind turbine or collection of wind turbines. Improvements section (6). Better internet. Eco friendly energy, solar or wind, preferably solar as not as visually negative as a wind The Plan acknowledges this and it is included in the turbine. Improvements section (6).
The Plan acknowledges this and it is included in the Any of the following (or Others) ‐ Transport, High speed internet, Renewable energy, Amenities Improvements section (6).
Long term sustainable plan, housing, internet, transport, amenities (restaurant, shops, sports), renewables, Improved public rights of way. Noted as above
Fast internet connection Noted as above
High Speed internet and Cycle Paths Noted as above
High Speed internet connection Noted as above
Renewable energies Noted as above
High speed internet to all villages Noted as above
Renewable Energy Provision Noted as above
Further infrastructure necessary to sustain population growth of Longwick/ Princes Risborough/ Monks Risborough etc.. Noted as above
Also there is NO fibre optic in Ilmer. Internet is a significant issue as we get it on overhead lines . Noted as above
I presume thought has been given to existing power supply problems and the concerns of (?about) Thames Water. Has the impact of all this development both in Longwick and Risborough on the High Wycombe to Aylesbury Road. Noted as above
…incorporate a small area somewhere such as Walkers Yard, to encourage small businesses and improve the Policy A5 has been designed to support small businesses in the sustainability of the village. . area.
More emphasis on HS broadband. Noted as above
Consideration must be made for the allocation of premises for a doctors/Dentist practice within the village. Noted as above
Allocating premises for a doctors (outreach?) surgery. Noted as above
Housing \ Plots & Policies within Wycombe District to enable this to take place within the housing. If the new Local Plan includes greater emphasis on local In addition please stare that all residents in Longwick should have first choice on new housing before it is connections, it may be possible for the Plan to address this at a opened up to the general public. Both of these are essential requests. later date.
Current Planning Application 15/06161/OUT has gone to appeal ref APP/K0425/W/15/3018514. If agreed this would put 160 dwellings in one location in the village which really undermines the desired scale and speed of development cited in the Neighbourhood Plan and would mean a 36% increase in housing stock straight away. We feel that Longwick can and must sustain some development but this should be in the form of small scale projects that maintain the current linear character of the village.To this end there are parcels of land that offer opportunities but any development must take into account the limited scope for increasing amenities. Developers appear to be targeting Longwick and any planning consents granted must take into account the suggested local plans for Princes Risborough and the surrounding area South West of the town. Noted. The Plan follows the Wycombe District Local Plan policy on the what % of the housing will be low cost housing? proportion and type of affordable housing measures.
Section 3.5 on page 11, para 2, 6th bullet point. This gives a misleading impression of space in the Village School. It would be better to say (as is the case) “The primary school is single‐form entry and is currently operating a waiting list for new entrants to Reception.” The Plan acknowledges this.
The consultation asked questions about Ilmer in order to establish the scale of interest and sources of the earlier support for housing allocations ‐ in the hamlets consultation. The Plan does not include Ilmer in the site allocations as it is unsustainable Seems as though ilmer is not part of plan or is imune from development need more detail ref Ilmer location for housing growth.
The importance of homes built having the minimum of hard standing and some garden Noted
I don't understand how yuo can have 3 questions about building 5‐10 houses in Ilmer, although 11 of the 27 builds in the last 10 years have been in Ilmer, yet no mention is made of how many in Longwick or elsewhere. Noted as above.
Further review of hamlets to identify small infills of 1 or 2 houses otherwise they will stagnate and local The Plan allows for 'windfalls' within the rural areas, subject to families will have move out if the cannot build additional properties. policy B1.
The only homes built should be for the elderly and more facilities for the young – sports centre and cycle paths throughout the area. Noted
Like the idea of re‐developing the Shoulder of Mutton at Owlswick. We need good mix of predominantly The Plan sets out the policy for the Shoulder of Mutton in policy smaller properties. B2.
Longwick needs more affordable housing. Noted
We need starter homes as our young children will move away as prices too high for them. Plenty of things to join in Princes Risborough for exercise, etc. No more needed in the village. Noted
The Plan include a community‐led visual impact assessment and I am opposed to the development of Site 3. It woud have by far the greatest visual impact of all the sites all developments would need to be accompanied by a landscape blocking the view to open fields. Although building there would result on a 30mph speed limit, I think this visual impact assessment. The Plan includes the need for speed may be achievable by arguing that a reduced a reduced limit is necessary because of the nature of the road. limits to be reviewed in this location.
We do not support Policies B and C as drafted. We (Armour Farm) do not fall within Meadle conservation This policy has been reworded in the Plan, and small businesses in village, neither do we belong to the Hamlet of Little Meadle yet both Policies B and C could apply to us the area will be supported by Policy A5. because of the loose drafting to prevent development “within or adjacent” to these hamlets. We do not agree that there is a case for extending special (or conservation in its general sense) status at all rural areas of the Parish. The fact that Meadle is a conservation area means that it is protected and any development is done to a higher standard to remain in keeping, but even a properly designated conservation area does not mean a blanket ban on any new development is imposed. Meadle has within it many non‐traditional/historic houses which have been added in the last half century and these do not seem to have damaged the village character and have made the type of houses there more diverse. A blanket ban on new development in all rural areas only protects the personal interests of those inhabiting it. Protecting the countryside from inappropriate development can be achieved in a less forceful way by ensuring that any development is tasteful and respectful. Policies B and C do not clearly allow people to determine whether or not they are in an area of restricted new development i.e by there being corresponding maps strictly defining them (the hamlet catchments). The wording at present is onerous and unfair (and would arguably be difficult to objectively enforce). It should also be noted that local facilities can be accessed from Meadle and Little Meadle by walking, cycling and horse riding (ref. Farm Shop). This conflicts with Item 1 of Policies B and C (which assumes facilities are only accessible by car) given as a reason for a blanket ban on new development in these areas. Rural areas generally will always rely on motorised transport to get to and from facilities due to the country roads which link them to more populated areas and distances. This does not mean people should be discouraged from aspiring to move to such areas (especially if their line of work is of a traditionally rural nature eg farming). Preventing any new development makes these areas exclusive and drives up property prices and the only people this helps is the current home owners in the area. People in rural lines of work will be priced out of living in the area and end up having to commute from outside the areas. A fairer process would be to designate specific areas worthy of protection from new development and to do so by creating a higher standard criteria (not simply a blanket ban on new development in rural areas). Other We appreciate the time and effort put into the Plan and we feel it commendable to have got so far in a relatively short time. Noted
The software used for this survey is appropriately named. There is far too little detail and some of the questions are unanswerable as posed. E.g Q.8 ‐ how can anyone say what street lighting may be appropriate without knowing its type and location? There are other examples. I have only submitted this survey to make the point that it is largely useless. Noted
Lots! Noted
Excellent plan and document, Many Thanks to the team Noted
A first class document congratulations to the team Noted.
The fact that sites have been identified by WDC as suitable for development doesn’t mean that they all need to be developed (I’m not aware that Longwick has a target figure to meet) Noted APPENDIX K1 Attendance at Consultation events June-July 2015 Appendix L: Schedule of Representations and Amendments This section is a schedule of the consultation responses or responses made, along with how the Neighbourhood Plan has responded to these, as required in the Regulation 14 Schedule of Representations, October 2013.
These are set out following sections within the Consultation Draft Plan (to which the respondents refer).
Consultation Draft Plan comments Response in Submission Plan Section 3.3 Key Environmental Characteristics Welcome the inclusion of heritage and archaeology and landscape The Tibbalds Longwick Capacity within the environmental characteristics, this could be expanded Study identified key characteristics (observation 1). for new development within the context of the village. The hamlets are largely defined by their Conservation Areas. Reference could also be made to the Scheduled Ancient Monument Included at the end of Section 2.2, as of the nucleated medieval settlement east of Waldridge Manor, a nearby grade II* listed building in which adjoins the parish boundary; Dinton-with-Ford and Upton Parish.
- there should be a greater reference to any non-scheduled Included. archaeological remains, information on which is available from the Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record, and a reference made to the Buckinghamshire Historic Landscape Characterisation; - has any character assessment been undertaken of the parish as a The Plan refers to the five whole? A characterisation study can help inform locations and Conservation Areas Character detailed design of proposed new development, identify possible Studies, and the Tibbalds Longwick townscape improvements and establish a baseline against which to Capacity Study findings. measure change. - promotes the use of characterisation toolkits such as “Placecheck”, The Tibbalds report and early “Understanding Place” or the Oxford Toolkit, links to which can have consultation addressed these issues. been supplied. (Economic: ix) Broadband - low quality of broadband is due to This is included in the Improvements quality of the line from BT which has no plans to upgrade. section (6) in the Plan. Section 3.5 Community Views Suggested amend wording to: “Sewer flooding in the north end of Reference unchanged, as previous the village due to unreliable pumping station” report seen by local residents acknowledges inadequacy of pumping station for capacity. Buckinghamshire County Council would expect Longwick School to Noted be able to absorb the anticipated growth in the area without expansion. Section 4.1 Vision Please include: “The Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish will be a Parish Included within Vision in shorter which protects, conserves and enhances the quality of the historic wording. environment of designated and undesignated heritage assets and their settings, including historic settlements, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, landscapes, and archaeological sites,” (observation 1) Section 4.2 Objectives Suggested wording to include from Marsh Gibbon Neighbourhood Wording included in shorter form in Plan Section H: “Developers need to consider the net increase in policy and justification for Policy A1.
1 water and waste water demand to serve their developments and also any impact the development may have off site further down the network, if no/low water pressure and internal/external sewage flooding of property is to be avoided. Thames Water must also be consulted regarding proposals involving building over or close to a public sewer. Developers should engage with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity” “Policy MG 20: Water and Waste Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate wastewater and water supply capacity both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users. It may be necessary for developers to fund studies to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing wastewater and water infrastructure.” No more development than the school can take, or infrastructure Noted, and included in should expand in line with growth, for example with improvements Improvements (Section 6). to the village hall. Objective 10 - would like to see a specific objective for the Included conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Section 4.3 Paragraph 157 Framework - no legislation allows for a It is a common objective for neighbourhood plan to be reviewed and this will mislead members neighbourhood plans to be reviewed of the public (4.8). on a 5 year programme. Policy A1: Settlement Limit for Sustainable Development: Longwick Village Supports this policy that sites will have to meet criteria including not Noted having “adverse impact on the capacity of the existing utilities – electricity and sewage in particular” Basic conditions (a) and 070 NPPG, para 16 NPPF - sites 1a and 1b Noted are supported as they can contribute to meeting the housing demands of Longwick. By identifying four sites (141 dwellings) the village is pro-active in considering allocations in accordance with the emerging WLP; - basic conditions (b) and (c) - there is no Conservation Area in the Noted village of Longwick and there are no listed buildings adjacent to sites 1a and 1b; - basic Condition (d) - Longwick can “be viewed as an inherently Policy A2, on the need for sustainable location as confirmed by the proposal to allocate circa sustainable travel choices with new 141 dwellings”(page 2); development, requires measures to make Longwick sustainable. Further development in this location without - the settlement boundary around sites 1a and 1B need to be measures to improve sustainable extended to incorporate additional land to allow development at a travel choices would not be density to complement the village character. Part of site 1b shown sustainable development. in the Capacity Study has not been included in the LNP. The The boundary has not been changed boundary in site 1a needs to be extended northwards to align with as there is no immediate link the boundary of development along Wheelwright Road (also see between density and site size. comments to Policy L1) (page 3). The boundaries of Sites L1a and L1b are to match, and follow the line of the field boundary of L1a. The scale and size of the designation is supported by extensive community consultation.
2 Defines a settlement boundary for Longwick which restricts future The new settlement boundary does growth contrary to paragraph 47 of the Framework (2.4.3); not restrict future growth. It actively promotes development by including new housing allocations of up to 129 - the restriction is inconsistent with paragraph 14 of the Framework dwellings. This is a 30% increase (contrary to the presumption in favour of sustainable development) when compared to the existing and in conflict with Basic Conditions (a), (d) and (e) (4.2.2); housing stock. When compared - by constraining housing, the neighbourhood plan is in conflict with historically to the last 11 years paragraphs 16, 47 and 49 Framework (5.14); (2001-2012), there have only been 27 new properties built in the area. - fails to comply with paragraph 159 Framework as too much These sites therefore represent a uncertainty remains about for housing need for Wycombe so the significant increase in historic growth Neighbourhood Plan places a non-compliant constraint on the in the village. housing delivery contrary to conditions 8(2)(a), (d) and (e) (4.10); It does not provide a cap on - fails to comply with paragraph: 004 PPG Reference ID 41-004- development but it allows for new 20140306 as the Neighbourhood Plan imposes a constraint on site allocations and “windfall” housing without first assessing the housing need (5.2); development to be appropriately developed within the settlement - fails to comply with paragraph: 005 PPG Reference ID 41-005- boundary (windfall criteria set out in 20140306 as there are four locations identified for 85-141 dwellings Policy A1). and the proposed village boundary constrains development. No evidence has been provided that any further development will take The Neighbourhood Plan meets the place within the boundary (5.3); strategic development needs in the - fails to comply with paragraph: 069 PPG Reference ID 41-069- current adopted Local Plan 20140306 as it fails basic condition (a) by constraining housing framework with an understanding of growth (5.13); the new Local Plan evidence base. - fails to comply with paragraph: 006 PPG Reference ID 37-006- The adopted framework does not 20140306 as the “Local Open Space” (OS1 and OS2) designed to identify a specific housing need for impose a “green gap” policy restrict the supply of housing and Longwick. The local planning should be deleted (5.20); authority has worked collaboratively - fails to comply with paragraph: 007 PPG Reference ID 37-007- with the Parish Council to ensure 20140306 as the areas of open space do not conform with the NPPF consistency with the Neighbourhood and PPG requirements and should be deleted (5.21); Plan and emerging new Local Plan. - fails to comply with paragraph: 040 Reference ID 3-040-20140306 as WDC cannot demonstrate a five year supply as an OAN has not It is not for neighbourhood plans to been produced so policy constraints including the proposed determine objectively assessed settlement boundary should not be included (5.28). housing need; this is a Local Plan matter set on a district basis. The Plan has been drawn up within the current Local Plan framework.
The Plan makes the new settlement boundary clear and it allows for new site allocations and “windfall” development.
The allocation of land for open space is in line with WDC policies, and in locations which fit the local context and existing facilities best. The neighbourhood plan highlights the needs for dark skies; this Included policy could be strengthened by mentioning the benefits that this will have to species such as bats and invertebrates (observation 3). Pleased with and support the locations of these site allocations in Noted 3 terms of fluvial flood risk; - for surface water flood risk recommends contacting the LLFA for Undertaken Wycombe District Council (which is Buckinghamshire County Council) which is also responsible for assessing groundwater flooding; - there are 7 main rivers in the parish which should be included in These have been looked at, but the the Neighbourhood Plan; closest, Longwick Brook, is not near any of the allocated sites. - the impacts from any development, on the water quality, ecology, Noted river impoundments, the river corridors and their ecological buffer zones and any water abstractions, on the above rivers will need to be considered and should also include other ‘ordinary watercourses’ that are not classified as named rivers; - point 12 - in line with NPPF paragraphs 117 and 118. Proposals for development will also need to be compliant with (and should also Noted be consulted for river corridor conservation) Policy DM15 (Protection and Enhancement of River and Stream Corridors) of the Wycombe District Delivery and Site Allocations Plan for Town Centres and Managing Development, adopted July 2013, and Policy CS17 (Environmental Assets) of the Wycombe Development Framework, adopted Core Strategy, Development Plan Document, July 2008; - groundwater quality and contaminated land - the site allocations Noted proposed are all Greenfield sites - please also refer to the following Wycombe local plan policy for Noted the protection of groundwater quality (Policy CS18 (Waste/Natural Resources and Pollution) of the Wycombe Development Framework, Adopted Core Strategy, Development Plan Document, July 2008). Would like to see an additional criterion requiring development to Noted, although specific reference conserve and enhance the significance of listed buildings. to the Baptist Chapel is not close to the site in Policy L1. Policy A2: New housing allocations: Longwick Village Supports housing allocation on land at Thame Road-Bar Lane Corner Wording not changed, as this policy if the following amendment is made (page 2): underpins the sustainability of Additional text in the “Detailed Policy’ “No development shall take Longwick as a location for new place on these sites until the long term and viable sustainable development. The Plan requires transport services are provided to the village or secured through these transport services to be new development by CIL (or s106 where reasonable).” provided mainly through s106 contributions rather than CIL. Four locations identified but does not propose a housing target, There is no housing target within the “accept the level of growth put forward within the NP is higher than Plan, as the sites are subject to in recent years, but this is not a sound basis for future growth” further surveys. (2.4.4). Shows ‘likely adverse impacts’ for the ‘Water and Flooding’ Noted, and as reported in objective and we are assuming that this is because of evidence of consultation events there is ground and surface water flooding in the village of Longwick as significant ground water and surface there is no fluvial flood risk in the village of Longwick in accordance water flooding. with our Flood Risk Mapping. Proposals within 10m of the railway line will require review and Wording included in the Plan. approval by NR. Any proposals must consider that they do not impact on NR land such as access points and rights of way, drainage works, encroachment of land or air-space, excavation works, siting
4 of structures within 2 m of boundary, lighting that could affect train drivers’ ability to see signals, landscaping that may impact overhead lines or NR boundary treatments, piling works, scaffolding works, anything that might result in trespass upon NR land, use of crane or plant, fencing works, demolitions works and hard standing areas. Policy B: Meadle, Ilmer, Owlswick, Horsenden Due to conservation considerations elsewhere, unmet need from Noted, but growth at Longwick is surrounding areas could be met by Longwick (2.4.6). subject to more sustainable transport choices being available. Please be aware that Horsenden village lies within Flood Zone 3 so Noted, and the Plan does not include any site allocations here will need to be sequentially tested. Fluvial any site allocations within Flood flood risk will need to be addressed in this policy. If any Zone 3. development is proposed in Flood Zone 3 and along the river corridor then these constraints will have to be addressed in Policy B of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. It is unreasonable to seek to preserve the settlement intact (clause Wording revised. 2) “preserve” (no change) is different to “conserve”; the policy should be rephrased as it is unclear whether the policy seeks to restrict any new development within the Conservation Areas to conversions and extensions only, or whether other forms of development will be permitted if they satisfy what could be considered, with some redrafting, to be a list of criteria (currently, they appear only as a detailed list of what the policy is intended to achieve). Ilmer additional housing - supports proposed 5–10 more houses but The Plan considers that new housing would not limit or restrict them to any particular area. at Ilmer would be unsustainable as there is only access by private car, and so does not promote a specific site or housing target for the hamlet. Footpaths and their immediate vicinity should be protected Noted and included where relevant. from any future building; - please add our neighbours The Rosary and The Sidings to the Noted, although where references protected view section alongside the mention of Five Bars; are made to open areas which give hamlets their isolated character, these are examples only and not a comprehensive list. - the maximum expansion in houses is noted at 15% or The Plan considers that new housing approximately 3 additional homes, and strongly back this; at Ilmer or the other hamlets would - strongly disagree with the figure quoted elsewhere of between 5 be unsustainable as there is only and 10 extra homes for Ilmer's potential expansion over the next 10 access by private car, and so it does years. not promote a specific site or target for the hamlet. Policy C: Little Meadle The village of Meadle has the Stockwell Brook main river running Policy reworded for hamlets. through it. This policy will need to be compliant with Wycombe local plan policies for river corridor conservation. Detailed Policy L1: Field opposite Rose Farm on the eastern side of Thame Road: Longwick Village Sites 1a and 1b should be omitted from the plan as they are only 90- Noted, but the Plan includes the 100 m from business which is likely to result in complaints from the sites and requirements with advice new residents about noise. from WDC environment health officer. Part 12 setback distance - this should conform with the WDP. The The reasoning is made clearer in the
5 minimum setback for properties on Wheelwright Road should be policy and Basic Conditions amended to be at least 25 m with an aim to achieve 30 m where Statement. possible (pages 5-6); - OS1 - open space is too large, there was mixed support for this by Wording revised to show WDC’s local residents at the Bellwood Homes consultation drop-in on 13 open space provision requirement. May. It is not reasonable to pay both the full CIL payment and Contributions will be required to provide the full OS1 site as such a large site is not required under both open spaces from all site Policy DM16. The boundary of OS1 should be amended as detailed allocations in the Plan. The open in the submitted plan (page 5). space layout now reflects public consultation discussions on the Draft Plan. Policy L1a: Do not envisage concerns with Water Supply capability. Noted Wastewater infrastructure is operating very close to capacity. Included Development of site 1a is supported. The northern boundary of site Boundary has not been changed as it 1a needs to be extended as marked so that it aligns with the follows the line of the field boundary boundary of development along Wheelwright Road which would of L1a. provide a more spacious development with more open space (page 4). Policy L1b: Concerns regarding Water Supply Services. Upgrades to existing Included infrastructure are likely to be required. Wastewater infrastructure is operating very close to capacity. Included Development of site 1b is supported but the northern boundary Boundary has not been changed as it needs to be extended as marked on Bellwood Homes submitted follows the line of the field boundary plan to provide the desired density of 12-20 units per hectare and to of L1a. provide the proposed open space along the Thame Road frontage (page 4). The grade II Baptist Chapel is just to the south-west of site L1b. Add Wording not included, as not close L1 “Respects the significance of the grade II listed Baptist Chapel to to site L1b. the south-west of the site”. Policy L2 Land at Boxer Road/ Barn Road Concerns regarding Water Supply Services. Upgrades to existing Included infrastructure are likely to be required. Wastewater infrastructure is operating very close to capacity. Included Queries how s106 contributions have been calculated, whether they The revised Improvements section are CIL compliant and there is no evidence to support providing OS2 (6) shows the division between s106 as the landowner is unwilling for this to be allocated (2.4.8); and CIL contributions.
- there is no evidence to show the viability of the aspired transport The need for more sustainable provisions (5.19); transport choices for Longwick has been set out by Bucks CC, and the Plan recognises that they may only be viable later in the Plan period. - as the Wycombe Local Plan is in its early stages, the housing need Establishing housing need is a Local for Longwick-cum-Ilmer has not been established (4.5.3); Plan matter. - the Neighbourhood Plan sets a lower housing density which is The lower housing density has been considered not an efficient use of land making it inconsistent with determined locally, as the Tibbalds conditions 8(2)(a), (d) and (e) (4.5.4); report sets out to address local character as well as on-site drainage requirements, and as explained in the Basic Conditions Statement.
6 - the objectives need to be “aspirational” (4.5.5) The Plan is considered by the community to be aspirational, and allocates sites for more growth than Longwick has experienced in its recent history, as well as other improvements to village life over the Plan period. - OS2 - there has been no dialogue with the landowner about this Consultation events have been open (2.4.5) and landowner is not willing for this space to be allocated to all landowners to discuss the Plan (2.4.8); during its development. The revised Improvements section - paragraph 173 Framework - OS2 and L2 require contributions (6) shows the division between s106 under CIL to be provided including a pedestrian link and a and CIL contributions. sustainable transport provision. If there were more dwellings a more significant contribution could be made (4.11). No vehicle access is allowed from Williams Way. Can two entrances The historic provision of access via please be considered for the proposed 30 – 50 dwellings. Williams Way was for agricultural uses, and so it has not been allocated for vehicles. Policy L3: Land on Thame Road east of Chestnut Way junction Do not envisage concerns with Water Supply capability. Noted Wastewater infrastructure is operating very close to capacity. Included Policy L4a-c: Land at Rose Farm 12-20 dwellings per hectare is too low and lower than the Core The lower housing density has been Strategy of 30 dwellings per hectare (2.4.12). determined locally, as the Tibbalds report sets out, and as explained in the Basic Conditions Statement. Do not envisage concerns with Water Supply capability. Noted Wastewater infrastructure is operating very close to capacity. Included Should address and include the ordinary watercourse running Included in policy wording, and set alongside this site as any development proposed near this out in Basic Conditions Statement. watercourse needs to be compliant with the NPPF and the Wycombe local plan polices DM15 and CS17; - the ‘ordinary watercourse’ running through Longwick should be The policy justification describes this addressed and included in the policy proposed for this site; watercourse.
- any development proposed adjacent to the watercourse needs to Noted be compliant with Wycombe local plan policies (Policies DM15, CS17, DM17 and CS18). Section 6.3 Infrastructure table Fails to comply with paragraph 204 Framework as The revised Improvements section fails to provide evidence that the provision of new infrastructure, (6) shows the division between s106 funded by planning obligations and CIL, will meet the three tests and CIL contributions. required (4.14); - fails to comply with paragraph: 045 PPG Reference ID 41-045- The need for the improvements to 20140306 as the proposed new bus route is “aspirational” without bus services is identified by any evidence concerning viability. Gladman’s proposal for 160 Buckinghamshire County Council, houses provides for this (5.9); and is to be provided in perpetuity.
- fails to comply with paragraph: 046 PPG Reference ID 41-046- The revised Improvements section 20140306 as the infrastructure requirements are not fully costed. (6) shows other community Additional land for residential development must be allocated to proposals that will be delivered ensure delivery of these infrastructure proposals (5.10). through other funding sources, and
7 costs will be determined as projects are developed further. There is a greater justification to spend CIL funds on improved cycle The revised Improvements section and bus services. Open space and transport improvements should (6) shows the division between s106 be funded by CIL. Delete “The land for OS1 will be provided as part and CIL contributions. of this allocation, and commuted sums provided for its maintenance, It also shows that other community as well as sustainable transport”. Add text setting out the proposals will be delivered through requirement for the Parish Council to apply to WDC to request a other funding sources. higher proportion of CIL contributions raised should be used towards improved pedestrian/cycle and bus links to Princes Risborough (page 6). Supports proposals to improve walking and cycling routes from the Noted Parish to Princes Risborough railway station. Annex A Fails to comply with paragraph: 041 PPG Reference ID 41-041- Noted 20140306 as considers the evidence base is not appropriate (5.6). Section 106 contributions A development of around 500 dwellings would be needed to fund The cost quoted is in line with the an hourly bus service, costing approximately £100k per annum. figure provided by Buckinghamshire Without an appropriate level of development the bus service will County Council (£110k), and the Plan not be viable (page 6). recognises that it may only become more viable later in the Plan period, with the potential expansion of Princes Risborough by 2,500 homes. Out-of date/incomplete/poor evidence The Development Plan cannot be considered up-to-date and is The Plan acknowledges the draft inconsistent with the Framework (2.3.5); HEDNA figures of 15,000 dwellings - promotion of Local Plan is not based on full, up-to-date evidence over the next 20 years. However it on need as the draft SHMA 2013 Wycombe gives an OAN of 11,000- conforms with current Local Plan 12,000 dwellings over the next 20 years (2.4.8); policies, whilst being aware of the - paragraph 49 Framework - the Council has failed to demonstrate a emerging Local Plan evidence base. 5 year housing land supply, the policies in the LNP remain out-of- date (4.6); - paragraph: 042 PPG Reference ID 41-042-20140306 - each site has The Tibbalds study assessed each not been properly appraised. The methodology is subjective rather site according the clear criteria and than based on technical assessment (5.7); the SA has explored other potential options. - paragraph: 044 PPG Reference ID 41-044-20140306 - the housing The Plan does not adopt the Core target in the Core Strategy is not up-to-date or reflective of the Strategy housing target figures. current need (5.8); - paragraph: 072 PPG Reference ID 41-072-20140306 - the LPC have The SA has been revised and used a subjective approach to the draft Sustainability Appraisal. submitted with the Plan. “We submit that there is a critical need to revisit this assessment to ensure that the SEA/SA can conform to legal requirements” (5.15); It is not for neighbourhood plans to - paragraph: 074 PPG Reference ID 41-074-20140306 - the SHMA determine housing need, which is a does not represent the full OAN and the LPN restricts sustainable Local Plan matter. The Plan has been development which cannot be in conformity with the emerging drawn up within the current Local Local Plan (5.17). Plan framework and with an understanding of the new Local Plan evidence base. Broadband The parish should note the need to ensure an equivalence of service Included in Improvements section in Ilmer and Little Meadle which still suffer from slow broadband (6).
8 speeds and ensure that new developments are connected to fibre infrastructure (observation 4). Sustainability Paragraph 17 Framework - the Neighbourhood Plan fails to consider The Tibbalds study assessed each the wider issues and give regard to sustainability credentials site according the clear criteria and associated with Gladman’s site at Barn Road (4.4); the SA has explored other potential fails to comply with paragraph 183 Framework as the options. Neighbourhood Plan cannot deliver the sustainable development as It is not for neighbourhood plans to the need is not known (4.12); determine housing need, which is a Local Plan matter. The Plan has been drawn up within the current Local Plan framework and with an understanding of the new Local Plan evidence base. No reference to links with other areas, such as a safe cycling link to Included in Policy A2 Princes Risborough linking to key destinations such as the Rail Station and schools which would be really beneficial; - recommends that reference is made to improving cycle parking facilities at key points in the village to help encourage cycling for Included in Policy A1 shorter trips as there is no reference to cycle parking facilities but a great emphasis throughout the plan on improving cycle routes within the village (observation 2). Conservation of biodiversity Recommends reviewing the Bucks Biodiversity and Planning Noted document produced in collaboration between a number of nature conservation organisations and NGO’s across Buckinghamshire (observation 3). Impacts on views This document as it stands is not currently compliant with various A community-led visual impact national policy and regulations as Sites I, J and L are all highlighted assessment has been undertaken as having possible potential impacts on views from the AONB, but and submitted with the Plan. This no assessment has been carried out to verify this; shows the potential visual impacts - strongly advises that the allocations proposed should have an LVIA on the views from the AONB at carried out; Whiteleaf Cross, and how these - the strategic site allocations should set out an appropriate could be mitigated. None are landscape mitigation and enhancement proposal; deemed to be so significant that an - if mitigation would not allow an allocation to proceed without allocation cannot proceed. impacting on the AONB then the allocation should be removed. Timing of Neighbourhood Plan Paragraph 16 Framework - the Neighbourhood Plan should not be This is not correct. Paragraph: 009 progressed until the adoption of the emerging Wycombe Local Plan Reference ID: 41-009-20140306 of otherwise it will be contrary to conditions 8(2)(a) and (e) (4.3.2); the PPG identifies that - paragraph 156 Framework - the WDC emerging Local Plan is in its neighbourhood plans can be early stages of preparation, this is not an appropriate stage to developed before or at the same prepare a Neighbourhood Plan as additional housing growth may time as the local planning authority need to be attributed to this tier of settlements once work on the is producing its Local Plan. There OAN is completed (4.7); have been several high court - paragraph 158 Framework - the Wycombe draft SHMA 2013 decisions ruling that it is lawful for a assesses the OAN as 550-600 dpa whilst the adopted Core Strategy neighbourhood plan to be ‘made’ is 402 dpa (4.9); before an up to date Local Plan is - paragraph 184 Framework - it is inappropriate to prepare a adopted. Neighbourhood Plan whilst uncertainty remains with the Wycombe emerging Local Plan, so conditions (a), (d) and (e) cannot be met As there are no strategic policies to
9 (4.13); be met, the Plan conforms with the - paragraph: 009 PPG Reference ID 41-009-2010306 - it is not yet current policy context. The Plan known what the strategic priorities for Wycombe will be. The does not conform to the Core Neighbourhood Plan should be progressed once the Wycombe Strategy housing figures. emerging Local Plan has been adopted (5.4); - paragraph: 040 PPG Reference ID 41-040-20140306 - robust and The Plan allows for it to be reviewed credible evidence has not been provided on which to plan for the in order to address new policies that development needs (5.5). may have been introduced through the new Local Plan.
The Plan has been drawn up within the current Local Plan framework and with an understanding of the new Local Plan evidence base.
The Plan has been drawn up following the Tibbalds study, public consultation, and within the current Local Plan framework. It is not for neighbourhood plans to establish housing need. Additional Development Site Proposes an additional development site which was considered Site is not included as it is seen as favourably in the WDC Capacity Study. ‘constrained’ in the Tibbalds report. It is reduced in size due to the Archaeological Priority Area designation, leaving this proportion of land unallocated, and outside the settlement boundary. Its location on the Longwick roundabout and edge of the gap to Princes Risborough makes it unsuitable for development. ES Scoping Report Paragraph: 073 PPG Reference ID 41-073-20140306, Growth Option Noted. Further text has been added 2a in Section 6 - the scoping report is insufficiently specific and the to Section 6 of the Submission SA information provided is inadequate. The environmental report has Report to describe the development failed to meet the requirements of Regs 5, 12 and Schedule 2 of the of options and the results of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations appraisal. 2004 (5.16); - paragraph: 078 PPG Reference ID 41-078-20140306 - basic The site is assessed as part of the condition (f) requires strict adherence to the SEA Directive. The range of options and sites appraised draft SEA does not adequately assess all reasonable alternatives. in the Submission SA Report. Gladman’s Barn Road/ Boxer Road site has not been assessed adequately so the SEA report does not meet Reg 12 and Schedule 2 The Submission SA Report contains of the SEA Regs (5.18); commentary on how the plan would - paragraph: 026 PPG Reference ID 11-026-20140306 - the draft achieve sustainable development SA/SEA fails to demonstrate how the plan will achieve sustainable and how it would affect various development and fails to assess all reasonable alternatives so does sustainability objectives. not comply with Regs 5, 12 and Schedule 2 SEA Regs. The 140 A range of growth scenarios, dwellings are based on the Village Capacity Study 2015 and not on representing all reasonable any Framework/PPG compliant assessment of need. It also fails to alternatives, are appraised in the deliver sustainable development contrary to paragraphs 14 and 47 Submission SA Report. of the Framework and 026 PPG and basic conditions (a), (d) and (f) It is considered that the Submission 10 (5.22); SA Report plan appraises all - paragraph: 027 PPG Reference ID 11-027-20150209 - basic reasonable alternatives relating to condition (f) requires strict adherence to the SEA Directive. All broad growth options, policies and reasonable alternatives have not been assessed (5.23 and also see site selection. 5.28 and 5.29); A range of growth scenarios are - paragraph: 046 PPG Reference ID 11-046-20150209 - the draft appraised in the Submission SA SA/SEA does not conform with Reg 12(2) and (3) Environmental Report – these are represented in Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. The SEA the form of options for different needs to test if a “pro-growth” scenario can be delivered. There is directions of growth. currently a lack of robust/credible evidence on housing needs The Submission SA Report contains a (5.24); full appraisal of the effects of growth - paragraph: 037 PPG Reference ID: 11-037-20150209 - the draft on a number of objectives, including SA/SEA ignores adverse trends (ageing population and affordability housing. These clearly identify issues), housing requirement of 140 dwellings is not based on a positive effects arising from the compliant OAN, no assessment of whether Longwick can deliver a delivery more housing. higher housing requirement and the provision of new infrastructure It is considered that appendix B has not been tested for viability (5.25); contains a clear and robust appraisal - paragraph: 038 PPG Reference ID: 11-038-20150209 - the positive of growth Option 2a. effects that growth option 2a could deliver are misrepresented. This Sites Q and R are appraised in the option is largely consistent with the preferred approach of Option 1. Submission SA Report. Parcels ‘Q’ and ‘R’ need to be assessed and the draft SA/SEA Option 1 can be differentiated form reviewed. Option 1 is the preferred strategy but is comparable with Option 4; the former includes Option 4 as they both provide growth consistent with the historical growth of the village beyond the pattern of development so are not reasonable alternatives (5.26). current settlement boundary; the latter does not. It is therefore considered that they can be clearly distinguished and that both represent reasonable alternatives. Environmental Objective 1 ‘To conserve and enhance biodiversity’ is especially welcomed and The information has been noted and recommend that it is highlighted, where appropriate, features for accessed where possible, but the biodiversity within developments will be expected, including mapping is not intended to provide integrated bat roost cavities, integrated swift or house martin very detailed guidance on all boxes. These measures are expected to be permanent in order to habitats, as it is of a broader scale. deliver meaningful ecological gain. The map showing these sites and habitats could be made clearer, trees which are protected should be shown, together with any proposals for tree protection. For further information on the most up to date information regarding statutory and non-statutory sites and species please approach the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre (BMERC) (observation 3). Appendix A: Assessing Growth Options Part 1 directions of growth/spatial options appraisal - suggest that Noted. Further text has been added you are clear about which type of flood risk you are referring to in to the commentary in Section 6 of the comments column in Appendices, A, B and C; the Submission SA Report to explain - you need to say whether the flood risk is fluvial (from rivers) or that the risk arises from surface and surface or groundwater flooding throughout this document; groundwater flooding. - the very small infill/intensification within the existing envelope of Comments on small Longwick would be sequentially preferable in terms of flood risk and infill/intensification noted. The biodiversity as the village of Longwick is within Flood Zone 1; Submission SA Report appraises that - this is acceptable in biodiversity terms as long as the developments all the options would have a are compliant with Wycombe local plan policies. negative effect on the ‘water and flooding’ objective due to the risk of flooding which would be present for 11 all options. Comments on biodiversity noted. The SA Scoping Report for the Neighbourhood Plan notes the plans which are in place at District level including references to the Core Strategy and Delivery and Site Allocations Plan, which contain the biodiversity policies which would be applicable. Appendix B: Assessing site options within the preferred growth strategy Part 2 site options/sites identified by Tibbalds Study - the issues of Noted. The SA has appraised the surface and groundwater flooding will need to be addressed by various growth options and sites as either the local planning authority or the Lead Local Flood Authority having a negative effect on ‘water (LLFA). and flooding’ objectives, and the report notes that this will require alleviation/mitigation measures. Appendix C: Assessing the policies of the plan Part 3 policy appraisal - comments noted under Policies A2, B, C and Noted. L4. Other concerns Fails to fully consider the requirements under paragraphs 066 and The Basic Conditions Statement has 068 PPG as the basic conditions statement is not available on the been submitted with the Plan, as Parish Council website (5.11 and 5.12). required.
12 APPENDIX M
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan Examiner’s Report (February 2016) A Review of Proposed Modifications
Prepared by TDRC Ltd for Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council February 2017
1
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan Examiner’s Report (February 2016)
A Review of Proposed Modifications
The previous Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan (October 2015) was Following Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council’s decision to review and independently examined by Nigel McGurk (Erimax Land, Planning and resubmit the Neighbourhood Plan, these modifications have been Communities) in February 2016. revisited as a key part of discussions about the revised Neighbourhood Plan. The following paper therefore sets out the issues raised by the The examiner’s report passed the Neighbourhood Plan, subject to examiner and his modifications, and the revised Neighbourhood Plan’s modifications which were set out in detail. response to these points.
EXAMINER’S REPORT COMMENT: THE NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: 1. Policy A1 Development at Longwick Village: Sought to permit Emphasizes what will be supported within the settlement boundary as a limited development beyond the new settlement boundary in sustainable location for new development. rural areas but with insufficient detail on what would be The policy uses existing WDC policies to define how development outside this “appropriate for a rural area”. boundary within the rural context will be regarded. This is set out in The Adopted Core Strategy Policy CS2 as “well located in relation to jobs, services and facilities and in the most accessible locations for transport by non-car modes” and ”where it supports the rural economy and the vitality of local communities”. Policy CS20 adds that development proposals will be expected to “provide safe, convenient and attractive access(es) on foot and by cycle, making suitable connections with existing footways, bridleway, cycleways, local facilities and public transport so as to maximise opportunities to use these modes.”
2. Policy A1 Development at Longwick Village: Set out 15 different Adopts the suggested new shortened text on design issues, and new density levels land use, design, layout and infrastructure requirements, which are not specified. A review of the densities used in local recently approved were regarded as too onerous and needing more evidence, or schemes and proposed developments was carried out. Using these densities and simplification. The required density levels were not justified and, WDC’s policy as a guide, sketch schemes were undertaken to establish potential although based on the local context (see Tibbalds 2015), were site development capacities. These measures enabled the total housing growth below WDC’s minimum density policy and did not offer evidence capacity to be identified, without prescribing density levels. about flood mitigation requiring lower density levels. 3. Policy A2 New Housing Allocations: Required the need to Reflects the need to substantially improve bus, pedestrian and cycle options for contribute to “long term and viable sustainable transport travel to and from the village, by seeking contributions towards these from all choices to the village and which are available upon completion development, but not linked to the first parcel’s completion. of the first development parcel”. This was not supported by 2
evidence to show that it was viable, necessary, related, or in proportion to the scale of development. CIL money was suggested as being used instead (a point which was later questioned by the inspector for Gladman Homes’ appeal).
4. Policy A3 Protecting the Identity of Longwick: Identified a ‘gap’ Rewords the policy to “Retaining Longwick Village’s Distinct Rural Identity”. The between settlements (where development would not be previous policy wording ambiguously described the village’s identity and its permitted) to protect Longwick’s identity. This was not potential coalescence. The policy now sets out that: supported by evidence showing that the gap would achieve this, 1. Longwick’s identity is distinct from the nearby town of Princes Risborough or that development in the gap would be unsustainable. because it is a small settlement, in a rural setting, with open views and easy access to the surrounding countryside. The policy is seeking to avoid Longwick having an increasingly urban or suburban feel, instead of its current rural character and setting. 2. Longwick’s physical separateness is important as it is part of this rural identity. This will become more significant in the future as the major expansion planned for the north-western side of Princes Risborough would lie close to the village. The main aim of the policy is to avoid the village becoming physically merged with the town of Princes Risborough, as Monks Risborough and Askett have been. The ‘gap’ policy is therefore maintained, and its role as a separator or buffer is set out. Development in this gap area could be sustainable in the broadest sense, but would fall into the rural area referred to in Policy A1, and covered by WDC policies. 5. Policy A4: Local Green Space Designations: These were judged Adopts the modified text. to be appropriate and minor modifications were proposed.
6. Policy A5 Small Scale Business Space: Required new small scale Adopts the modifications. business space to be “within walking distance of the main residential areas”. This was not judged to meet national policies for rural diversification, and the need for a Travel Plan for small scale development was also not accepted.
7. Policy B1 Development in the Neighbourhood Plan area: Set Deletes the policy as proposed, after checking local case studies on whether the policies for development beyond the settlement boundary, existing local and national policies offered the safeguards sought. but were seen to be too restrictive and onerous on accessibility, response to conservation areas, and for local amenity. The modification proposes deleting this policy.
3
8. Policy B2 Shoulder of Mutton Public House, Owlswick: Amends the policy so that there is still an onus on a potential developer to Described the context for the conversion and redevelopment of demonstrate that the current community use is not viable (which has not been land at the Shoulder of Mutton, but did not specify how the done to-date), but does not set a specific timescale (i.e. of at least 6 months) for its viability of the current use could be demonstrated. It was also marketing. The reason for that is that the public house’s unusual character in a unclear about what was encouraged in any future conversion. very rural location, and the fact that it was not closed due to its demonstrated lack of viability, means that it may take more than the suggested 6 months for a future occupier to come forward. However to balance this with the need to put the site to good future use, the policy sets out how the public house itself could be converted and its outbuildings redeveloped, which may also improve views from the nearby public footpath. 9. OS 1 & 2 Open Space Allocations: land opposite Rose Farm on Moves the open space policies into the related site allocation policies. Thame Road, and at Boxer Road/ Barn Road, Longwick: Set out policies for open space provision separately from the development sites that would deliver them, which was unclear.
10. L1 Site allocation of land opposite Rose Farm on Thame Road: Describes the two sites as one site, and adopts the policy simplifications. The Described the need for the two adjacent sites to be developed smaller 30m back-to-back distance modification is also adopted, but with wording “as two separate sites”, which was seen as unnecessary. The to indicate what it is aiming to achieve. earlier references to density levels, SUDs and other details The wording on the need for noise mitigation measures to be provided at the pet around the open space being integral could be simplified. There hotel is also adopted. was no evidence to show why a back-to-back distance of more than WDC’s Residential Design Guidance of 30m was required. The policy for mitigating future noise complaints is strengthened to give more support to the future viability of the nearby pet hotel.
11. L2 Site allocation of land at Boxer Road/ Barn Road: Set out Adopts the modifications. specific density levels, SUDs and other details around the open space being integral (as above) which could be simplified. 12. L3 Site allocation of land on Thame Road east of Chestnut Way Adopts the modifications. junction: Set out specific density levels and other details (as above), which could be simplified. 13. L4 Site allocation of land at Rose Farm: Set out specific density Adopts the modifications. levels, SUDs and other details (as above), which could be simplified.
4
APPENDIX N
LONGWICK-CUM-ILMER NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Longwick-Cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan Examination, A Report to Wycombe District Council by Independent Examiner, Nigel McGurk BSc(Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI
Nigel McGurk
Erimax Land, Planning and Communities
erimaxltd.com
February 2016
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 1
Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Basic Conditions and Development Plan Status
3. Background Documents and the Longwick-Cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area
4. Public Consultation
5.The Neighbourhood Plan: Introductory Section
6. The Neighbourhood Plan: Policies
7. The Neighbourhood Plan – Other Matters
8. Summary
9. Referendum
2 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
1. Introduction
The Neighbourhood Plan
This Report provides the findings of the examination into the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan (referred to as the Neighbourhood Plan).
Neighbourhood planning provides communities with the power to establish their own policies to shape future development in and around where they live and work.
“Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and deliver the sustainable development they need.” (Paragraph 183, National Planning Policy Framework)
Longwick-cum Ilmer Parish Council is the qualifying body responsible for the production of this Neighbourhood Plan. This is in line with the aims and purposes of neighbourhood planning, as set out in the Localism Act (2011), the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Planning Practice Guidance (2014).
This Examiner’s Report provides a recommendation as to whether or not the Neighbourhood Plan should go forward to a Referendum. Were it to go to Referendum and achieve more than 50% of votes in favour, then the Neighbourhood Plan would be made by Wycombe District Council. The Neighbourhood Plan would then be used to determine planning applications and guide planning decisions in the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 3
Role of the Independent Examiner
I was appointed by Wycombe District Council, with the consent of the qualifying body, to conduct an examination and provide this Report as an Independent Examiner. I am independent of the qualifying body and the local authority. I do not have any interest in any land that may be affected by the Neighbourhood Plan and I possess appropriate qualifications and experience.
I am a chartered town planner and an experienced Independent Examiner of Neighbourhood Plans. I have extensive land, planning and development experience, gained across the public, private, partnership and community sectors.
As the Independent Examiner, I must make one of the following recommendations:
a) that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to Referendum, on the basis that it meets all legal requirements; b) that the Neighbourhood Plan, as modified, should proceed to Referendum; c) that the Neighbourhood Plan does not proceed to Referendum, on the basis that it does not meet the relevant legal requirements.
If recommending that the Neighbourhood Plan should go forward to Referendum, I must then consider whether or not the Referendum Area should extend beyond the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area to which the Plan relates.
In examining the Plan, I am also required, under Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to check whether:
• the policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated Neighbourhood Area in line with the requirements of Section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004;
• the Neighbourhood Plan meets the requirements of Section 38B of the 2004 PCPA (the Plan must specify the period to which it has effect, must not include provision about development that is excluded development, and must not relate to more than one Neighbourhood Area);
• the Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared for an area that has been designated under Section 61G of the Localism Act and has been developed and submitted for examination by a qualifying body.
Subject to the contents of this Report, I am satisfied that all of the above points have been met.
4 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Neighbourhood Plan Period
A neighbourhood plan must specify the period during which it is to have effect.
The Neighbourhood Plan is clear in this regard. The title page of the Neighbourhood Plan sets out the plan period as 2015 - 2033. There are further references to the plan period in the Foreword and Chapters 3 and 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Taking the above into account, I confirm that the Neighbourhood Plan satisfies the relevant requirement with regards specifying the plan period.
Public Hearing
According to the legislation, when the Examiner considers it necessary to ensure adequate examination of an issue, or to ensure that a person has a fair chance to put a case, then a public hearing must be held.
However, the legislation establishes that it is a general rule that neighbourhood plan examinations should be held without a public hearing – by written representations only.
Further to consideration of the written representations submitted, I confirmed to Wycombe District Council that I was satisfied that the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan could be examined without the need for a Public Hearing.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 5
2. Basic Conditions and Development Plan Status
Basic Conditions
It is the role of the Independent Examiner to consider whether a neighbourhood plan meets the “basic conditions.” These were set out in law1 following the Localism Act 2011. In order to meet the basic conditions, the Plan must:
• have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State; • contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; • be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area; • be compatible with European Union (EU) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations.
I have examined the Neighbourhood Plan against all of the basic conditions above.
The Neighbourhood Plan refers to the basic conditions in Chapter 3 and a Basic Conditions Statement has been submitted. This sets out why, in the view of Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council, the Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions.
Development Plan
The relevant development plan2 for the area includes the saved policies of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2004), Wycombe’s Adopted Core Strategy (2008) and Wycombe’s Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (2013).
1 Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 2 I also note that the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plans (2004-16) and Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2012) make up part of the planning policy framework for Wycombe. 6 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Obligations
I am satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan has regard to fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the ECHR and complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary.
European Union (EU) Obligations
There is no legal requirement for a neighbourhood plan to have a sustainability appraisal3. However, in some limited circumstances, where a neighbourhood plan is likely to have significant environmental effects, it may require a Strategic Environmental Assessment.
With the above in mind, draft neighbourhood plan proposals should be assessed to determine whether the plan is likely to have significant environmental effects. This process is referred to as a “screening” assessment. If the screening assessment identifies likely significant effects, then an environmental report must be prepared.
The Basic Conditions Statement confirms that a screening opinion, to establish whether Strategic Environmental Assessment was required, was undertaken by Wycombe District Council, which concluded that:
“the Neighbourhood Plan is likely to allocate a number of sites for future development which could have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore SEA is required.” (Screening Opinion, Prepared by Wycombe District Council) and went on to state that:
“The LcINP is likely to have a significant effect on the environment as a result of the allocation of sites for development.”
Wycombe District Council recommended to Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council that a Sustainability Appraisal, incorporating SEA, be prepared, “giving special consideration to…impacts on flood risk and visual impact.”
Wycombe District Council produced a Scoping Report, setting out the framework to form the basis for the Sustainability Appraisal. The Neighbourhood Plan, on page 14, states that the Sustainability Appraisal “shows how the Plan ‘contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.’”
3 Paragraph 026, Planning Practice Guidance 2014. Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 7
Consultation on the Scoping Report was carried out with statutory bodies - the Environment Agency, English Heritage (now, with regards to planning matters, Historic England) and Natural England. The statutory bodies were also consulted on the final “Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Environment Report,” which was submitted together with the Neighbourhood Plan.
A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required if the implementation of the Neighbourhood Plan may lead to likely negative significant effects on protected European sites.
The Basic Conditions Statement confirms that there are no European sites within, or close to, the Neighbourhood Area and that consequently, a Habitat Regulations Assessment is not required.
The Sustainability Appraisal identified:
“…potential negative effects of some of the growth options…Some of these negative effects will be capable of being mitigated through the policy requirements and through the development management process.” (Technical Summary)
A number of spatial strategies for the growth of Longwick village were appraised, along with “reasonable combinations” of these strategies. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the “Growth consistent with the linear form of the village” option was the most sustainable. Development sites identified by a Longwick capacity study were appraised and shortlisted, and the appraisal informed the final extent of the sites to be allocated.
Paragraph 1.4 of the Sustainability Appraisal states that
“The District Council has assisted the Parish Council in carrying out the assessment process.”
Comments by the statutory consultees were taken into account and none have raised any concerns with the conclusions of the final Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal. The Basic Conditions Statement confirms that:
“no negative impacts on the sustainability objectives as a result of the plan aims, policies or proposals were identified.”
8 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Natural England submitted a representation to the Neighbourhood Plan after the close of the statutory consultation period. This followed a reminder by Wycombe District Council, sent to Natural England on the last day of the consultation period.
Generally, the consultation period is precisely that and any representations received outside this period do not need to be taken into account. However, in this case, I am mindful that Natural England did not raise any new matters, but simply stated that “the advice given in (a) previous letter applies equally to this consultation.” The previous letter referred to was submitted during the draft consultation period.
In this previous letter, Natural England stated that
“It is unclear from the SEA that impacts of the plan and its allocations on the Chilterns AONB have been considered. Sites I, J and L are all highlighted as having possible potential impacts on views from the AONB but no assessment has been carried out to verify this...the allocations proposed should have an (sic) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment carried out.”
This letter was dated 17 July 2015. In October 2015, Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council published a Community-led Visual Impact Assessment. This Visual Impact Assessment assesses the visual impacts of the site allocations, with regards to the AONB and identifies what, if any, mitigation measures will be needed to moderate potential impacts.
The Community-led Visual Impact Assessment provides evidence that appears to be proportional to the production of a neighbourhood plan by a Parish Council for a Parish comprising 566 homes. It addresses the concerns raised by Natural England in July 2015 and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
It is relevant to note that, whilst a neighbourhood plan must be compatible with EU obligations, the content of an SEA supporting it need only be proportionate to the plan itself. Under guidance issued by the Secretary of State, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is required to
“focus on the environmental impacts which are likely to be significant. It does not need to be done in any more detail, or using more resources, than is considered to be appropriate for the content and level of detail in the neighbourhood plan.” (Planning Practice Guidance 11-030).
A representation to the Neighbourhood Plan states that it does not consider the SEA undertaken to be “adequate, sufficiently detailed or robust to meet EU regulations” and suggested that the Sustainability Appraisal should have been carried out differently.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 9
There are different ways in which a sustainability appraisal can be carried out. I note that, in the case of the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan, whether or not the Parish Council considered a possible growth option that a party would have liked it to consider, does not equate to the same thing as the Sustainability Appraisal not being compatible with EU obligations.
Also, whilst there is some scope for there to be an element of subjectivity where assessments and scoring are involved, I am mindful that the Sustainability Appraisal, incorporating an SEA, followed on from a Screening Report and a Scoping Report, and that Wycombe District Council was closely involved in the process – the whole of which was undertaken in an open and transparent manner.
Ultimately, with regards European obligations, national guidance establishes that the ultimate responsibility of determining whether or not a draft neighbourhood plan meets EU obligations lies with the local authority,
“the local planning authority must decide whether the draft neighbourhood plan is compatible with EU regulations.” (Planning Practice Guidance 11-031)
As above, Wycombe District Council has been closely involved in the environmental assessment process. It has not raised any concerns regarding the Neighbourhood Plan’s compatibility with EU obligations.
Taking all of the above into account, I am satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan is compatible with EU obligations.
10 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
3. Background Documents and Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area
Background Documents
In undertaking this examination, I have considered various information in addition to the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan. This has included:
• National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (2012) • Planning Practice Guidance (2014) • Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) • The Localism Act (2011) • The Neighbourhood Planning Regulations (2012) • Wycombe District Local Plan (2004) (Local Plan) • Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (2013) • The Core Strategy (2008) • Basic Conditions Statement • Consultation Statement • Sustainability Appraisal • Screening Opinion and Scoping Report • Longwick-cum-Ilmer Community-led Visual Impact Assessment • Longwick village capacity study • Longwick site assessment summary • Bucks County Council letter on transport issues, May 2015 • Environmental Noise Survey • Longwick public consultation workshop: issues report, October 2014 • Ilmer Conservation Area character survey
Also:
• Representations received during the publicity period
In addition, I spent an unaccompanied day visiting the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 11
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area
A plan showing the boundary of the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area is provided on page 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The boundary of the Neighbourhood Area coincides with that of Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish.
Further to an application made by the qualifying body, Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council, Wycombe District Council approved the designation of Longwick-cum-Ilmer as a Neighbourhood Area on 2 March 2015.
This satisfied a requirement in line with the purposes of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan under section 61G (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
12 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
4. Public Consultation
Introduction
As land use plans, the policies of neighbourhood plans form part of the basis for planning and development control decisions. Legislation requires the production of neighbourhood plans to be supported by public consultation.
Successful public consultation enables a neighbourhood plan to reflect the needs, views and priorities of the local community. It can create a sense of public ownership, help to achieve consensus and provide the foundations for a ‘Yes’ vote at Referendum.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan Consultation
In line with legislative requirements, a Consultation Statement was submitted to Wycombe District Council. Further to consideration, I can confirm that this sets out who was consulted and how, together with the outcome of the consultation. In this regard, the Consultation Statement meets the requirements of the neighbourhood planning regulations4.
Further to deciding to produce a Neighbourhood Plan at the beginning of 2015, a Steering Group, comprising three members and three residents, was formed in February 2015. This followed the production of a village capacity study, undertaken during 2014 and published in February 2015. The Steering Group was supported by a Liaison Officer (also a Parish Councillor), the lead officer for the area from Wycombe District Council and a consultant.
A questionnaire was directed at residents in the Parish’s hamlets, local businesses, the school, pre-school, local shop/post office and community groups, and a Press Release was published in the Bucks Free Press during March 2015. This explained the neighbourhood planning process and how to get involved.
Residents were updated on progress at the Annual Parish meeting in April 2015 and the Steering Group set up a stall at the Annual Village Fete in May 2015, to promote and encourage involvement in the process, as well as to gain the views of residents.
The first draft plan was prepared and underwent consultation during June and July 2015, over a six week period prior to the school holidays. The consultation was supported by the distribution of 600 leaflets, informing residents of where the plan could be read, or borrowed from, and incorporating a 12 question survey.
4Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 13
Drop-in sessions, with an exhibition, were held over three days at the end of June 2015 and the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council website provided information as well as the opportunity to respond and/or complete the 12 question survey. The draft plan was made available in a variety of locations.
More than a hundred people attended the drop-in sessions and were encouraged to provide representations. The Consultation Statement shows how representations were taken into account. In addition to changes resulting from consultation, the draft plan was modified to take into account a Health Check, commissioned from the Neighbourhood Planning Independent Examiner Review Service (NPIERS).
Taking all of the information provided into account, the Consultation Statement presents an audit trail to demonstrate that consultation met statutory requirements. Comments were pro-actively sought and responses were duly considered. The results of the consultation are clearly presented and provide evidence to demonstrate that the Neighbourhood Plan reflects the views of local people.
Consultation was carried out in an open manner, and people and organisations were not just provided with a fair chance to have their say, but were actively encouraged to engage in shaping the Neighbourhood Plan.
I note above that the Steering Group was supported by an officer from Wycombe District Council. Planning Guidance requires local planning authorities to be proactive in providing information to communities about neighbourhood planning and to constructively engage with the community throughout the process (Paragraph 009, Neighbourhood Planning, Planning Guidance). There is evidence to demonstrate that Wycombe District Council were proactive and engaged constructively during the production of the Neighbourhood Plan.
I am satisfied that the consultation process was comprehensive and robust.
14 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
5. The Neighbourhood Plan – Introductory Section
Where modifications are recommended, they are presented as bullet points and highlighted in bold print, with any proposed new wording in italics.
The policies of the Neighbourhood Plan are considered against the basic conditions in Chapter 6 of this Examiner’s Report. I have also considered the Introductory Section of the Neighbourhood Plan and make recommendations below which are aimed at making it a clear and user-friendly document.
The Contents page is clear and the Foreword provides a concise and relevant opening to the Neighbourhood Plan.
Chapter 2 provides an interesting and distinctive summary of Longwick-cum-Ilmer’s history, geography and characteristics. I note that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existence of an unreliable pumping station in the Neighbourhood Area results in sewer flooding. Further to a representation received from Thames Water I recommend:
• Page 9, section 2.5/1g, delete “…due to the unreliable pumping station.”
There is a mistake on page 11 and for clarity, I recommend:
• Page 11, section 2.7, last line of first paragraph, change to “An extract from this Study is provided on the following page.”
• I also note that the text of Figure 1 appears faded and resultantly, is difficult to read. I recommend that Figure 1 is re-introduced into the document, with the purpose of improving its legibility
Whilst the last two paragraphs of section 2.7 provide interesting information, they simply comprise a snapshot in time. The information within these paragraphs will soon become out of date and in the context of the plan period, will become less relevant over time. I recommend:
• Page 11, section 2.7, delete the last two paragraphs
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 15
The third Chapter of the Neighbourhood Plan provides relevant plan-making background information. It includes a helpful reference, in section 3.5, to the fact that the Neighbourhood Plan:
“has been prepared in collaboration with WDC and in anticipation of the reasoning and evidence of the emerging Local Plan, but focuses on being in conformity with the relevant saved and current policies in the Wycombe District Development Plan documents.”
Planning is a dynamic process and it is not unusual for there to be an “emerging” district wide plan at the same time as a neighbourhood plan is coming forward. A neighbourhood plan can be made prior to a district wide plan being adopted,
“Neighbourhood plans…can be developed before or at the same time as the local planning authority is producing its Local Plan…” (Planning Practice Guidance 41/009).
However, when producing a neighbourhood plan, plan-makers should seek to take into account relevant evidence and information, and to work together with the local planning authority.
In setting out the approach that it does, the Neighbourhood Plan recognises that there is a need for sustainable development in Wycombe, with particular regard to housing growth:
“One of the roles of this Neighbourhood Plan therefore is to show how the Parish and Longwick in particular might respond to this need by accommodating some of this necessary growth, but ensuring that it is shaped according to the unique characteristics of the area, its settlements and communities, and overall sustainability.” (section 3.7, page 16)
This provides an important introduction to the Policies that follow. It establishes that a major role of the Neighbourhood Plan is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
I note that Chapter 4 provides a Vision, together with Objectives, that together, provide a link between the views of the local community and the Policies of the Neighbourhood Plan. It also sets out a Monitoring and Review Process. No changes to this Chapter are recommended.
16 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
6. The Neighbourhood Plan – Neighbourhood Plan Policies
Policy A1: Development at Longwick Village
Policy A1 establishes a new settlement boundary for Longwick village. It is a supportive Policy, which provides an assumption in favour of development within the settlement boundary, subject to meeting various criteria. In general, the Policy has regard to national policy, which supports sustainable growth, and in so doing, contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
The Policy seeks to permit development outside the settlement boundary, subject to it being “appropriate for a rural area.” Only very limited detail is provided with regards what might make a development “appropriate.” Consequently, there is insufficient information to provide a decision maker with a clear indication of how to react to a development proposal, as required by the Framework (Para 154).
Further to the above, it is a concern that Policy A1 states that development outside the settlement boundary “will be permitted.” Worded in this way, the Policy runs the risk of effectively pre-approving development proposals without considering relevant matters of detail. Such an approach is inappropriate and fails to reflect the need to take into account a balanced consideration of matters as part of the planning application process.
As set out, Policy A1 would only support development within the settlement boundary where it meets fifteen separate requirements. These break down into land use, design and layout, and local infrastructure requirements.
Taking each in turn, the first land use requirement establishes that all development must be in in the density range 12-20 dwellings per hectare. This could result in as few as 12 dwellings being built on each hectare of land. It is an approach that is not in general conformity with Local Plan Policy H8, which states that “a net density of less than 30 dwellings per hectare is unacceptable.”
In the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate that, in all circumstances, development outside of the 12-20 dwellings per hectare threshold proposed would fail to comprise sustainable development, such an approach could prevent sustainable development from coming forward. In the context of the Policy, I am also mindful that no evidence is provided to demonstrate that appropriate flood mitigation measures can only be achieved at the densities set out.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 17
I recognise that the proposed density threshold is intended to reflect local character and that recent developments have been below 20 dwellings per hectare. In this regard, and taking into account the recommendations below, it is relevant to point out that other parts of the Neighbourhood Plan, as well as national and local planning policies, protect local character.
The remaining three land use categories require all residential development to provide affordable housing, a mix of dwellings and elderly accommodation or Lifetime Homes standards. No evidence is provided to demonstrate why say a development of one house, or a few houses, would need to provide these things in order to comprise sustainable development. Further, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the requirement set out has regard to national policy or is in general conformity with local strategic planning policies.
The next six categories relate to design. Good design is recognised by national policy as comprising:
“a key aspect of sustainable development…indivisible from good planning” (Para 56, the Framework).
National policy also requires good design to contribute positively to making places better for people (Chapter 7, the Framework). In addition, Local Plan Policy G3 requires a high standard of design.
It is not clear why every new housing development needs to provide houses that are the same height, massing and scale as existing houses, as required by requirement 5. During my site visit, I observed that not all houses in Longwick were the same height, massing or scale. No evidence is presented to demonstrate that the requirements of requirement 5 are achievable, or why not meeting them would mean that a development did not comprise sustainable development.
Similarly, it is not clear how every new housing development can “…reflect the local character and materials found in each part of the village (my emphasis)…” or why every new housing development must enhance the character of the natural and historic environment. This are requirements far more onerous than any local or national policy and no evidence is provided to justify such a departure. Further, I note that there is no evidence to demonstrate that it is possible or necessary in terms of sustainable development, for all new residential development to enhance the natural and historic environment.
18 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
The Policy goes on to require all housing development to “maximise opportunities for passive and active sustainable design” without defining precisely what this means, or providing any evidence that such a requirement meets the basic conditions; and it requires all housing development to “enhance” watercourses, “improve” habitats and boundary features, and contribute to the enhancement of drainage ditches. In respect of these latter requirements, again no justification is provided to demonstrate why proposals should go beyond those of national and local policy, and no evidence is provided to demonstrate that it would be practicable, viable, or even possible for them to do so.
In terms of requirement 10, it is not clear how new development can “ensure that cars are not displaced to local roads.” Use of the term displacement would suggest that the cars are already present, which doesn’t make any sense in a Policy relating to development that has not yet taken place. Notwithstanding this, it is unclear how the Neighbourhood Plan could prevent people from parking wherever parking is allowed.
Requirement 11 is not supported by any evidence to demonstrate that dark skies can be protected, at the same time as providing street lighting to “safeguard community safety.”
It is unclear how requirement 13 could be controlled and as worded, it makes little grammatical sense. Further, the requirement provides no clarity with regards when a developer would need to produce a study, what the study would need to comprise and who would assess the study.
Requirement14 does not provide any relevant detail in terms of what “regulated” actually means or how a proposal will be regulated, who by and on what basis. I note that the delivery and operation of utilities is outside the control and the responsibility of Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council.
The final category requires all residential development to make financial contributions. This is a vague requirement which fails to have regard to the national policy requirement for all planning obligations to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, to be directly related to the development, and to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development (Paragraph 204, the Framework).
Taking all of the above into account, I recommend the following:
• Policy A1 delete lines 2-5 (“Outside the settlement boundary...countryside recreation.”)
• End line 8 “…or on other windfall sites.” (Delete all of the text in Policy A1 that follows “…windfall sites.”)
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 19
• Add new sentence “Within the settlement boundary, the provision of affordable housing, a mix of housing types, and accommodation for the elderly will be supported; and low carbon eco homes and household renewable energy measures are encouraged. Where possible, street lighting should provide for safety and have regard to the protection of dark skies. Development must respect the character and appearance of the area and should not increase flood risk. Housing densities that allow for on-site flood mitigation measures and on-plot sustainable urban drainage solutions are encouraged.”
• The penultimate paragraph of the supporting text reads as though it were a Policy, which it is not. Change to “…capacity issues; the Parish Council encourages developers to resolve these by demonstrating how proposals will affect and address utilities issues. This can be achieved by demonstrating that there is adequate water…public sewer.”
Subject to the above, Policy A1 meets the basic conditions.
20 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Policy A2: New Housing Allocations
Policy A2 allocates four sites for residential development. Detailed Policies relating to each of these sites are contained in Policies L1 – L4 and these are considered later in this Report.
Whilst I acknowledge that representations have been received expressing concerns with regards flood risk, I am mindful that the allocated sites have emerged through the various stages of the plan-making process and that the Environment Agency supports their inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan. In its letter of 30 November 2015, the Environment Agency states:
“The site allocations are all within areas with the lowest probability of flooding (Flood Zone 1). This is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 100 and 101…We are pleased with and support the locations of these site allocations in terms of fluvial flood risk.”
In addition to the above, whilst Buckinghamshire County Council made representations to the Neighbourhood Plan consultation, it did not, as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for Wycombe, express any concerns with regards flood risk.
The Neighbourhood Plan does not set a specific housing target for the Neighbourhood Area. However, subject to the modifications recommended in this Report, it does provide for housing growth by allocating land for development. Furthermore, it does not place a maximum figure on the number of houses that can be developed in the Neighbourhood Area.
Even based on the low housing density requirements, which I recommend should be deleted from Neighbourhood Plan, plan-makers estimate that sufficient land is allocated within the Longwick settlement boundary for up to 129 new homes. This would comprise a very significant increase for a settlement of just 438 homes (figure provided in the Consultation Statement).
Such a large proportional increase over the plan period would result in the Neighbourhood Area making a significant proportional contribution to Wycombe’s growth requirements.
Whilst I acknowledge that a number of landowners and/or land promoters/developers would like to see more land allocated for development, it is clear from the evidence presented that Longwick’s location close to the Chilterns AONB, along with its limited services and facilities, limits the scope for the settlement’s sustainable development over the plan period.
In providing for a significant contribution to housing growth, the Neighbourhood Plan has regard to the Framework, which seeks to “boost significantly the supply of housing” (paragraph 47).
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 21
Whether or not Wycombe District Council has a five year housing land supply is not something that, in itself, means that the Neighbourhood Plan needs to allocate, for housing development, any land that is identified as being capable of providing for such. Rather, the allocations provided in Policy A2 reflect the overall Vision and the Objectives set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. The housing allocations in the Neighbourhood Plan contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and there is not a requirement to allocate more.
The Neighbourhood Plan aspires to provide for sustainable modes of transport and this has regard to Chapter 4 of the Framework, “Promoting sustainable transport,” However, Policy A2 goes on to introduce a somewhat unusual approach to financial contributions. It states that development will be supported if it contributes towards “long term and viable sustainable transport choices to the village and which are available upon completion of the first development parcel.” The Policy states that these “include” a pedestrian and cycle route and an “attractive” bus service.
No detailed information is provided with regards what financial contributions will be made and on what basis. There is no evidence to demonstrate that it is viable for the allocated sites to deliver the “high quality pedestrian and cycle route” and “attractive” bus service “upon completion of the first development parcel.” There is no evidence to demonstrate that the requirement for financial contributions is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The approach does not meet the basic conditions.
Further to the above, Wycombe District Council has an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This is payable in accordance with a Charging Schedule. The Neighbourhood Plan fails to demonstrate how the proposal in Policy A2 relates to CIL. I am also mindful that the sustainable transport modes sought are reliant upon development outside the Neighbourhood Plan. This emphasises the importance of the District-wide approach to CIL.
Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy A2, delete the second section “On these sites…railway station.”
• Delete all of the supporting text other than the first two paragraphs
• Add a new supporting paragraph “The Parish Council will seek to use its share of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments to contribute towards sustainable modes of transport.”
I recognise that this removes an aspiration from the Neighbourhood Plan’s Policies. However, failing to modify Policy A2 would result in it failing to meet the basic conditions. This would mean that the Neighbourhood Plan could not progress to Referendum.
22 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Policy A3: Protecting the Identity of Longwick
Policy A3 seeks to prevent the coalescence of Longwick and Princes Risborough. This has regard to the Framework and is in general conformity with Local Plan Policy G3. Both documents protect local character. In this regard, Policy A3 meets the basic conditions.
Longwick is located in a sensitive environment, within the setting of the Chilterns AONB. Further, the Longwick Village Capacity Study demonstrates that maintaining the separation of Longwick from Princes Risborough performs a role in maintaining the separate rural identity of Longwick.
The Policy refers to a specific gap, which is shown on Map 1. This simply seeks to prevent development within an area of land marked along the boundary of the Neighbourhood Area. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the “gap” identified is necessary to achieve the aims of Policy A3 nor that it would not be possible for development within this gap to be sustainable. Consequently, this part of the Policy may prevent the achievement of sustainable development.
Whilst I acknowledge that the Longwick Capacity Study suggests that development should not occur to the south of Icknield Way, land to the south of Icknield Way within the Neighbourhood Area has already been developed. As above, there is nothing to demonstrate that sustainable development could not take place on land to the south of Icknield Way.
Furthermore and importantly, the recommendations below do not automatically mean that this land can be developed - Policy A3 can still provide for the separation of Longwick and Princes Risborough without showing a “gap” on Map 1.
The last part of Policy A3 supports transport and infrastructure development, subject to protecting local character and amenity. As worded, it would only support such development associated with the growth of Longwick or (my emphasis) Princes Risborough – such an approach would prevent development associated with the growth of both settlements that may otherwise be sustainable.
Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy A3, replace title as “Policy A3: Supporting new transport and other infrastructure to promote sustainable growth”
• Change “What and why” to “Providing for improved transport and other infrastructure.”
• Policy wording, delete “…The gap between…Map 1, as Policy A3”
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 23
• Delete the “gap” shaded on Map 1 and the reference to Policy A3 in the key of Map 1 and delete last sentence of the supporting text.
• Policy A3, change part 2 to “…growth of Longwick and/or Princes Risborough, will be…”
Subject to the above, Policy A3 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development and meets the basic conditions.
24 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Policy A4: Longwick and Owlswick
Policy A4 designates Local Green Space.
The Framework enables local communities to identify, for special protection, green areas of particular importance to them. Paragraph 76 states that
“By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances.”
Local Green Space is a restrictive and significant policy designation. The Framework requires the managing of development within Local Green Space to be consistent with policy for Green Belts. Effectively, Local Green Spaces, once designated, provide protection that is comparable to that for Green Belt land. Notably, the Framework is explicit in stating that
“The Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space.” (Para 77)
Consequently, when designating Local Green Space, plan-makers must clearly demonstrate that the requirements for its designation are met in full. These requirements are that the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; it is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance; and it is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. Furthermore, identifying Local Green Space must be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services.
Policy A4 designates two areas of Local Green Space, Longwick playing field and Owlswick village green. Longwick playing field is located towards the centre of Longwick. It is an attractive area of land and provides sports pitches and an open setting to Longwick Village Hall. Evidence has been provided to demonstrate that Longwick playing field is demonstrably special to the local community and holds local significance as “the home of all local recreational and cultural activities.”
Longwick playing field is not an extensive tract of land and it is in close proximity to the community it serves. Its designation as Local Green Space meets the basic conditions.
Owlswick village green is centrally located in Owlswick. It is an attractive open space. Evidence has been provided to demonstrate that Owlswick village green is demonstrably special to the local community and holds local historic significance as part of a Conservation Area, with Listed and other important buildings around it. It is not an extensive tract of land, is in close proximity to the community it serves and its designation meets the basic conditions.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 25
Plans showing the location of the two areas of Local Green Space are provided in the Neighbourhood Plan and are referenced in the Policy.
The wording of the Policy is not entirely reflective of national policy and I recommend that, in order to have regard to the Framework, the following changes are made:
• Policy A4, delete “…to prevent future development taking place here.”
• Policy A4, add, after the two bullet points, a new sentence “Development of Local Green Space is not permitted, other than in very special circumstances.”
26 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Policy A5: Small Scale Business Space
Generally, Policy A5 is a positive Policy. It supports business growth, having regard to Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 of the Framework, “Building a strong, competitive economy” and “Supporting a prosperous rural economy,” respectively.
In supporting both the growth and relocation of business or employment premises, Policy A5 has regard to Paragraph 28 of the Framework, which supports “the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise” in rural areas.
However, it is not clear why all proposals need to be within walking distance of the main residential areas. Such an approach would fail to have regard to national policy, which promotes the development and diversification of agricultural and other land- based rural businesses and which supports rural tourism and leisure developments (Para 28, the Framework). This part of the Policy also fails to have regard to Paragraph 32 of the Framework, which states that:
“Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”
In addition to the above, no information is provided as to why small-scale development needs to produce a Travel Plan. Consequently, there is no justification for this requirement.
In addition, it is not clear how the Neighbourhood Plan will “encourage” proposals that offer employment opportunities to local people, or which provide community facilities and the phrase “adverse impact on the residential environment” is not defined and consequently, appears vague and unclear.
Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy A5, line 3, change to “…supported, provided that it respects local character and residential amenity.”
• Delete bullet point 2. (“Proposals will be…new development.”)
• Bullet point 3, change to, “Proposals that offer employment…societies, will be welcomed.”)
• Delete final part of supporting text “…, and be within…residential areas.”
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 27
Policy B1: Development in the Neighbourhood Plan area (beyond the settlement boundary of Longwick)
Policy B1 considers development beyond the settlement boundary. The first sentence includes the phrase “the following criteria will apply.” This is unnecessary and confusing, as each of the bullet points that follow appear to comprise self- contained requirements.
The first bullet point states that housing development will be acceptable where there is “sustainable, safe and suitable access to local facilities for all.” This is an odd choice of phrase that is not supported by any definition. It suggests that development is acceptable without taking into account all manner of relevant factors and appears at odds with the supporting text, which states that rural hamlets are an “unsustainable” location for growth. Consequently, the inclusion of this bullet point is confusing and does not provide decision makers with a clear indication of how to react to a development proposal.
The second bullet point requires all conversions or extensions to demonstrate “no harm to their setting.” Such an approach fails to have regard to national policy, which does not set out such an onerous requirement. Further, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that a development cannot be sustainable, even if a variety of factors overcome any harm to setting. Consequently, Policy B1 does not contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
In addition to the above, heritage policy is clearly established in Chapter 12 of the Framework, “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment” as well as in the strategic policies in the Chapter 11 of the Local Plan, “Heritage.” Together, the Framework and the Local Plan do not prevent all development that may cause some harm to the setting of a Conservation Area. Rather, they provide for an appropriate balanced approach, which focuses on conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. In failing to do this, the second bullet point of Policy B1 does not meet the basic conditions.
Similarly, the third bullet point fails to have regard to national policy and is not in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. Neither national nor local strategic policy requires all development outside of settlement boundaries to “enhance the special character of Conservation Areas.” No evidence is provided to demonstrate that such an approach is either possible or that failing to comply with it would result in a proposal not comprising sustainable development.
The fourth bullet point seeks to welcome the conversion of any building of architectural merit to residential, or any other uses. This is an approach that might have unintended consequences, whereby it would welcome a conversion that may harm the special architectural or historic interest of a historic building. I note that Historic England has expressed concern with such an approach.
28 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
The final bullet point of Policy B1 requires development to enhance “important views identified in Conservation Area Character Surveys, green gaps in the structure of hamlets, and long distance views.” Notwithstanding that none of these things are defined in any significant detail in the Neighbourhood Plan, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that the requirement has regard to national policy or is in general conformity with local strategic policy. Further, there is nothing to demonstrate that failing to meet the requirements of this bullet point would mean that a proposal could not comprise sustainable development. Consequently, the requirement does not contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Delete Policy B1 and supporting text
This does not mean that heritage assets will not be protected. National and local policy provide for the appropriate protection of the nation’s heritage assets.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 29
Policy B2: Shoulder of Mutton Public House
Whilst “it has not been in use for some time,” the Shoulder of Mutton pub was formerly a community facility. The Framework promotes the retention of pubs in rural areas (Paragraph 28) and Policy B2 has regard to this.
The Policy refers to viability, but does not provide any clarity in how this may be demonstrated. Further, the reference to viability is repeated in the first and second bullet points.
The second bullet point refers to “the residential conversion of the site and outbuildings” and the fifth bullet point refers to the removal of the outbuildings, which adds unnecessary confusion to the Policy. Further, the reference to a residential conversion restoring “the pub itself” introduces even more uncertainty.
Policy B2 uses the term “permitted.” Consequently, the Policy effectively runs the risk of pre-approving a development proposal without considering relevant matters of detail. Such an approach is inappropriate and fails to reflect the need to take into account a balanced consideration of matters as part of the planning application process.
The pub is located within the Conservation Area and part of the wider site is located in its setting. There is no need to refer to both in the fourth bullet point. Further, I note that it may be possible that some adverse impact on setting is overcome by other factors.
The final bullet point is unnecessary as the Policy already refers to the outbuildings. Further, the bullet point lacks clarity and is vague, partly due to the use of the terms “may…if…potential.” I note that no indication is provided as to why any development should provide benefits to a nearby footpath, or what these benefits might be.
I recommend:
• Policy B2, change to “The retention of the Shoulder of Mutton in Owlswick as a community facility is supported. The residential development of the site, including the conversion of the pub, will be supported subject to demonstrating that: further to a marketing period of at least 6 months, that use as a pub is not viable; development will be no greater than the footprint of existing buildings and storey heights will not be higher than the pub itself; the development respects the Conservation Area and its setting.”
Subject to the above, Policy B2 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development and meets the basic conditions.
30 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Policy OS1: Open Space Allocation – land opposite rose Farm on the eastern side of Thame Road and
Policy OS2: Open Space Allocation of land at Boxer Road/Barn Road
Both Policy OS1 and the Policy that follows, OS2, seek to allocate open space. The Framework recognises that:
“Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.” (Paragraph 73)
In this way, Policies OS1 and OS2 have regard to national policy. Further, the Neighbourhood Plan provides evidence that the proposed open space will adequately meet “WDC’s open space requirements per person” arising from new residential development in Longwick.
However, as the proposed open spaces are directly linked to, and reliant upon, the land allocations at Sites 1a, 1b and 2 being delivered, it appears inappropriate and unnecessarily confusing for them to form separate open space Policies. There is, for example, no evidence to demonstrate what would happen to the open space allocations if the aforementioned housing sites did not come forward. The Policies fail to provide a decision maker with a clear indication of how to react to a development proposal and do not meet the basic conditions. As it is a requirement of Policies L1 and L2 that open space be provided, it is more appropriate for each area of open space to form part of those two Policies.
I recommend:
• Move the open space requirements to Policies L1 and L2 (see Policies L1 and L2, below)
• Delete Policies OS1 and OS2 and supporting text
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 31
Policy L1: Site Allocation of land opposite Rose Farm on the eastern side of Thame Road
Policy L1 allocates 1.9ha for residential development. The site is split into two parts (L1a and L1b) and is located adjacent to the land the subject of Policy OS1 (see above).
As a residential allocation, Policy L1 relates directly to Policies A1 and A2 – it contributes towards the growth of Longwick and it is located within the settlement boundary. Policy L1 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
Even though the Policy contains 17 separate criteria, it remains inappropriate for it to state that development at L1a and L1b “will be permitted.” Such an approach effectively pre-approves development, without necessarily taking all relevant factors into account.
I consider that the splitting of the site into L1a and L1b adds unnecessary detail and some scope for confusion. The site has a single access and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the measures set out in Policy L1 would result in the site appearing “as two separate sites” or that not splitting them would result in development that is not sustainable.
Criterion 1 refers to density. I note above (Policy A1) that the approach set out is not in general conformity with Policy H8 of the Local Plan. In this regard, Policy A1, as modified, requires development to respect the character and appearance of the area.
The reference to SUDs in Criterion 3 can appropriately include the whole site and the general approach to landscaping, drainage, sustainable movement and access, in Criteria 2-9, contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the screening of development from long distance views can be “ensured,” as required by Criterion 10.
Criterion 11 refers to open space. Further to the recommendations above, I propose that Criterion 11 is changed to take into account the open space formerly referred to in Policy OS1 and that the Site L1 is altered to refer to the open space as “L1 Open Space,” see below.
32 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
A representation has been submitted, in objection to the size of the open space, by the prospective developer of Site L1. It suggests that the open space should be smaller and that the area of land for new housing should be expanded. However, evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed open space performs the role of an important green gap in the village and that it provides for important glimpses through to surrounding countryside.
Further, the open space provides potential to provide for drainage and water attenuation as part of any SUDs. Flooding and flood risk is an issue in the Neighbourhood Area. The Framework is clear in its requirement to “ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere” (Paragraph 103). Also, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the inclusion of the open space identified as part of the development of Site L1 would result in the development being unviable.
Further to the above, I note earlier that the Neighbourhood Plan allocates land for the significant growth of Longwick. There is no requirement for it to allocate additional residential land.
Criterion 13 refers to a minimum 35 metre setback from homes on Wheelwright Road. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that providing a 35 metre set back rather than the preferred 30 metre setback, as set out in Wycombe District Council’s Residential Design Guidance5, will have any impact on flood risk. Adopting a 30 metre setback would be greater than the minimum distance required and together with the significant area of open space proposed, provides much potential for SUDs, referred to elsewhere in Policy L1.
Criterion 15 suggests providing noise mitigation measures to “preclude future noise complaints” arising from a nearby Pet Hotel business. On consideration of the evidence, it appears likely that, without mitigation, noise levels from the established Pet Hotel business may significantly exceed World Health Organisation recommended levels in parts of the site, at some times during the day and night.
Failure to mitigate this would place a business that has been established for twenty years at risk of future complaints. These may arise from the occupiers of homes built on site L1 experiencing unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance from the presence of up to 107 dogs. The Framework recognises the importance of rural businesses. Having regard to national policy, it is important that the viability of the Pet Hotel business is not placed at risk as a result of the development of the site. I set out measures to strengthen Criterion 15 in this regard, below.
Criteria 16 and 17 relate to the responsibilities of other organisations and are outside the control of the Neighbourhood Plan.
5 Wycombe District Local Plan Appendix 1 – Residential Design Guidance (2004). “The separation between facing windows in the private zone, can be achieved by a minimum distance of 25m. However, 30m is preferred. This can be achieved at no loss of overall space.” Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 33
The final part of Policy L1 includes a “S106” column. These simply provide a vague list without any relevant detail and do not indicate any link with CIL.
Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy L1, change opening sentence to “The development of Site L1 is required to:”
• Delete the references to L1a, L1b and OS1 on the plan and its key on page 37
• Change the reference in “What and why” to “Site L1”
• Change reference to L1a and L1b on Map 2 to “L1”
• Change reference to OS1 on Maps 1 and 2 to “L1 Open space”
• Delete Criterion 1
• Change Criterion 3 to “Accommodate SUDs to address issues of surface and groundwater flooding.”
• Change Criterion 5 to “…vehicle and pedestrian access, which respects existing residential amenity, to the new residential areas from Thame Road via L1 Open Space, and provide a Travel Plan.”
• Change Criterion 9 to “…through development, to reflect the glimpses...”
• Change Criterion 10 to “Incorporate structural planting along Bar Lane to screen new development from…”
• Change Criterion 11 to “The land identified on Maps 1 and 2 as L1 Open Space will be delivered as part of the development of Site L1 and will be retained as a open space. It should form part of the SUDs for Site L1 and where appropriate, provide for water attenuation and drainage.”
• Criterion 13, replace “35m” with “30m”
• Criterion 15, change to “…measures must be provided at Maccabees Pet Hotel on Bar Lane to a standard that prevents noise levels emanating from Maccabees Pet Hotel from exceeding World Health Organisation guidelines at any new house on Site L1.”
• Delete Criteria 16 and 17
• Delete S106 table at foot of page 35 and top of page 36
34 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
• Justification, first paragraph, change OS1 reference to “the open space”
• Second paragraph, change to “…provided across the site and to Bar Lane.”
• End fourth paragraph “…retained and reinforced.” (delete rest of para)
• End fifth paragraph “…for sustainable housing growth.” (delete rest of para)
• Sixth paragraph, delete sentences 2, 3 and 4. Change last sentence to “…design of the open space as well as…”
• Last paragraph on page 36, delete first sentence
• First paragraph on page 37, change “35m” to “30m.” Change second sentence to “This is in keeping with WDC’s Residential Development Guide and is aimed at protecting existing…homes from additional surface water…boundaries.”
• Delete last paragraph
Subject to the above, Policy L1 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development and meets the basic conditions.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 35
Policy L2: Site Allocation of land at Boxer Road/Barn Road
Policy L2 allocates 2.5ha for residential development. The site is located adjacent to the land the subject of Policy OS2 (see above).
As a residential allocation, Policy L2 relates directly to Policies A1 and A2 – it contributes towards the growth of Longwick and it is located within the settlement boundary. Policy L2 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
A number of issues relating to Policy L2 are similar to those considered above in relation to Policy L1. These are reflected in the recommendations below. I note that Criteria 2, 3, 8 and 10 protect local character and/or residential amenity, having regard to national and local strategic policy. Further, Criteria 7 and 9 have regard to the Framework, which gives priority to pedestrian movements (Para 35).
Criterion 11 refers to open space. I propose that the open space formerly referred to in Policy OS2 is instead referred to in a new Criterion 11 and that Site L2 is altered to include the open space as “L2 Open Space,” see below.
A representation has been received in objection to the allocation of the open space. It states that “the land is not available as open space.” Whilst the land forms part of a site promoted by the objecting party for residential development, it is currently undeveloped and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the land is not capable of providing open space.
With regards the above, evidence has been provided to demonstrate that new development in Longwick will need to provide open space and that the proposed open space is located such that it could provide a natural extension to the village playing field and community facilities.
The Neighbourhood Plan has evolved through an appropriate plan-making process supported by public engagement and consultation. As such, it reflects the views of local people who, having regard to national policy, have “a powerful set of tools…to ensure they get the right types of development for their community” (Paragraph 184, Framework).
The Policies of the Neighbourhood Plan aim to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and in this regard, the allocation of Site L2 is directly linked to the provision of the open space identified.
36 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Site L2 currently forms part of land being promoted for significantly more development than that set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst “the landowner is not willing” for the open space to be designated as open space, the Neighbourhood Plan is clear in its requirement for the development of land at Site L2 to be accompanied by the delivery of the open space identified. The approach set out contributes to the achievement of sustainable development and meets the basic conditions.
I recommend:
• Policy L2, change opening sentence to “The development of Site L2 is required to:”
• Delete the reference to OS2 on the plan and its key on page 40
• Delete reference in “What and why” to “and OS2”
• Change reference to OS2 on Maps 1 and 2 to “L2 Open space”
• Delete Criterion 1
• Change Criterion 4 to “Accommodate SUDs to address issues of surface and groundwater flooding.”
• Change Criterion 7 to “…field and the new open space, through the...”
• Change Criterion 10 to “…field and the new open space, between areas of...”
• Change Criterion 11 to “The land identified on Maps 1 and 2 as L2 Open Space will be delivered as part of the development of Site L2 and will be retained as a open space. Within this open space, an all-weather, permeable loose surfaced footpath is to be provided to the existing public right of way.”
• Delete Criterion 13
• Delete S106 table on page 38 at the end of Policy L2
• Justification, page 39, third paragraph, change to “…Way to the open space, the playing field…”
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 37
Policy L3: Site Allocation of land on Thame Road east of Chestnut Way junction
Policy L3 allocates 1ha for residential development. As a residential allocation, Policy L3 relates directly to Policies A1 and A2 – it contributes towards the growth of Longwick and it is located within the settlement boundary. Policy L3 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
A number of issues relating to Policy L3 are similar to those considered above in relation to Policies L1 and L2. These are reflected in the recommendations below. I note that Criteria 2, 3, 4 and 10 protect local character, having regard to national and local strategic policy. Further, Criteria 5 and 6 have regard to the Framework, which promotes safe access and gives priority to pedestrian and cycle movements (Paragraph 35).
Taking the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy L3, change opening sentence to “The development of Site L3 (1ha) is required to:”
• Delete Criterion 1
• Delete Criterion 7
• Delete S106 table on page 41 at the end of Policy L3
38 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
Policy L4: Site Allocation of land at Rose Farm
Policy L4 allocates 1.05ha for residential development, split between three sites, which are close together but separated by existing access points.
As a residential allocation, Policy L4 relates directly to Policies A1 and A2 – it contributes towards the growth of Longwick and it is located within the settlement boundary. Policy L4 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
A number of issues relating to Policy L4 are similar to those considered in relation to the three preceding housing allocation Policies. These are reflected in the recommendations below. I note that Criteria 2, 3, 4 and 6 protect local character, having regard to national and local strategic policy. Further, Criterion 5 has regard to the Framework, supports the production of Travel Plans (Paragraph 36).
Taking the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy L4, change opening sentence to “The development of Site L4, comprising L4a… (0.5ha), is required to:”
• Delete Criterion 1
• Change Criterion 7 to “…how development will address flood risk.” (delete rest of sentence)
• Change Criterion 8 to “Accommodate SUDs to address issues of surface and groundwater flooding.”
• Delete Criterion 10
• Delete S106 table on page 43 at the end of Policy L4
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 39
7. Neighbourhood Plan – Other Matters
Chapter 6 of the Neighbourhood Plan focuses on implementation. It provides a table showing priorities for funding, potential sources and an estimate of costs and income. Whilst clearly indicative only at this stage, this provides a useful guide, not least given that I recommend deletion to other references to planning obligations in the Policy section of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Chapter 7 provides a useful “Glossary and Jargon Buster.”
No changes are recommended.
40 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
8. Summary
I have recommended a number of modifications further to consideration of the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan against the basic conditions.
Subject to these modifications, the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan
• has regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State; • contributes to the achievement of sustainable development; • is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area; • does not breach, and is compatible with European Union obligations and the European Convention of Human Rights.
Taking the above into account, I find that the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions. I have already noted above that the Plan meets paragraph 8(1) requirements.
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com 41
9. Referendum
I recommend to Wycombe District Council that, subject to the modifications proposed, the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to a Referendum.
Referendum Area
Neighbourhood Plan Area - I am required to consider whether the Referendum Area should be extended beyond the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area. I consider the Neighbourhood Area to be appropriate and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
I recommend that the Plan should proceed to a Referendum based on the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Area as approved by Wycombe District Council on 2 March 2015.
Nigel McGurk, February 2016 Erimax – Land, Planning and Communities
www.erimaxltd.com
42 Longwick-cum-Ilmer Examiner’s Report www.erimaxltd.com
APPENDIX O
Longwick-cum-Ilmer Neighbourhood Plan
Update Meeting 23 November 2016 Speakers: • Penelope Tollitt, Wycombe DC • Brian Richards, Parish Council • Louise Thomas, TDRC Ltd urban planning consultant to Parish Council • Mark Mathews, Thames Water
Previous draft Neighbourhood Plan: • Settlement boundary • Sites for up to 129 homes • Public open spaces • Additional benefits – transport, facilities, etc
Why a new Neighbourhood Plan?
• 3 large planning applications = 268 homes in total • Old Neighbourhood Plan (129 homes) needs to be revised and new sites found for additional homes as in new draft Local Plan • Aim: to manage village’s growth and avoid further large-scale speculative development • Alternative: respond to each planning application on own issues?
Current (‘old’) settlement boundary New outline planning applications in Longwick village: • Gladman: 160
Bar Lane homes approved 43 homes
• Bellwood Homes at Rose Farm 65 homes Bar Lane: 43 homes (Nov approval?)
Gladman • Rose Farm: 65 160 homes homes (Dec approval?) Withdrawal of last draft Neighbourhood Plan • Pre-submission ‘Healthcheck’ carried out (Aug 2015) – good report • Independent examiner passed the Plan for Referendum (Feb 2016) – but with too many modifications to reflect local concerns: – E.g. bus service in place for completion of first house – No real gap between settlements – Housing density levels too low… • WDC also had no 5 year housing land supply set out, to give the NP a firm foundation
New draft Neighbourhood Plan basis
• ‘Positive’ approach to development, not anti • 300 homes target for village (not less) • Identify sites for additional homes • Only about policies not covered elsewhere (e.g. in new draft Local Plan and national policies) • Review undertaken of all previous sites (suggested in October 2014 public consultation and Tibbalds report)
Tibbalds Village Capacity Study (November 2014): • Sites A-T reviewed October 2016 by PC and local steering group • Recommended new possible sites and numbers
Excluded: • A & B – edge location, flooding, conservation issues • T – flooding and rural eastern edge • Part of I and J – Bar Lane traffic, rural edge, flooding, pet hotel effect • M, N, O, part of L – gap between Longwick and Princes Risborough • P and S - access and start of western spread northwards?
Included: • Q, R K - Gladman site, now approved • H – part of larger Rose Farm application • F, G, part of I and L – all previous NP sites • C, D and E – small infill opportunities? Proposed draft
Neighbourhood Plan: 6-15 homes? • A new settlement boundary • Sites with new or possible Outline 6-10 homes? Bar Lane Planning Consent 43 homes Rose Farm • Sites needed to 65 homes meet 300 homes target 20-25 homes?
• 300-318 homes – Gladman numbers reflect 160 homes unknown site conditions New or Retained Policies Proposed site ‘allocations’: – Sites proposed for or already with outline planning consent (268 homes) – 5 smaller sites (32 homes) • New settlement boundary and settlement gap to reflect importance of village’s rural setting • Design layout principles for sites • Contributions to buses, walking and cycle routes, community facilities • ‘Local Green Spaces’ protected in Owlswick and Longwick • Small Scale Business Space - encouraged • Shoulder of Mutton PH - principles for conversion • Rural area issues still covered by national and WDC policies (new and existing)
RETAINED SITE: ROSE FARM FRONTAGE
NEW APPLICATION: ROSE FARM RETAINED SITE: THAME ROAD Nr CHESTNUT WAY JUNCTION Sites C, D, E
New small sites: NEW C E • North end of SITES: D village C D E • Adjacent to Strattons, Anderdons and Red House Farms • Near to listed buildings • Flooding issues • Small scale infill • 2-5 homes on each
Design principles for larger sites - to be updated NEW APPLICATION: Nr. BAR LANE
APPROVED APPLICATION: GLADMAN SITE
NEW APPLICATION: ROSE FARM
Infrastructure Capacity
• Capacity Study (2014) – basic outline of constraints • Flooding, sewage and drainage capacity issues • Primary school can meet the needs of 300 new homes • Village hall – small expansion possible but not required • Nursery/ shop – could be proposed by others • Health provision to be met at Princes Risborough as now • Community hub – potential locations? • Public open spaces – provided on each site typically • Thame Road traffic calming scheme – more people, better access to shop, playing fields, village hall… Next Steps
• Show of hands to proceed with new Plan? • Re-write for formal submission to WDC January- February 2017 - formal consultation for 6 weeks • WDC Draft Local Plan - consultation in 2017 • Examiner appointment to review all feedback and evidence • If passed by Examiner and still acceptable locally, local referendum possible April-May 2017. • Thames Water to speak next…. APPENDIX P