LANDAT HANKELOWVILLAGE AUDLEM
HOUSINGFEASABILITY STUDY January2009
Robert& Anne Netherwood CharteredArchitects 20 High Street Ellesmere Shropshire SYl2 OEP I
CONTENTS
Page Introduction 1
2 AlternativeSites 2.1 SiteA SitePlan 2.2 SiteB 2"3 SiteC 2"4 SiteD 2.5 Discussion
3 Casefor Developmentof Site A 3.1 LandUse 3.2 Context 3.3 Policy 3.4 Design
AppendixA Summaryof AgriculturalAppraisal
AppendixB Summaryof HousingNeeds Survey
AppendixC SketchPlan of Development -
LANDAT HANKELOWVILLAGE
FEASIBILITYSTUDY
1. Introduction
1.1 Thehousing needs survey for Audlem and the surroundingsmaller settlements undertaken in 2007 establishedthat there is a needfor localaffordable housing in thearea" In the caseof Hankelowthe requirementwould be for 6-10houses. llo_f .7;, 1"2 Thereis no prospectof providingthis number of affordablehouses within the Hankelowvillage development boundary.There are no vacantsites and if any werecreated theirvalue would preclude affordable development.
1.3 The localneeds housing has therefore to be an exceptionssite or locatedelsewhere" The criteria for exceptionssites require that such land should adjoin the village developmentboundary and be adjacentto the existinghousing development.There also needs to be readyaccess to the development.There appear to be foursites in Hankelow,which fulfilthese initial requirqments, referenced A, B, C & D on the attachedsite plan.
1"4 Thisfeasibility study focuses on proposalsfor the site markedA. Thissite is knownto theAuthorities as being availableand hasbeen the subjectof informalplanning proposals.The site owners are Mr C E Thelwell,Mrs J M Thelwelland Mr D E Thelwell.Discussion of the meritsof sites B-Dis intendedto be fairbut it is notknown if thesesites would be availablefor lowcost development.
2. AlternativeSites
2.1 SiteA
2"1"1The land area of siteA is approximately4.72 ha, of which about0.40 ha shouldprovide sufficient land for 6-8 housesand thecirculation space. Depending on the locationof the housing
HankelowVillage Feasibility Study A
r*ia"rx* l*'roViiiag+ F*e sihii;r\i iti,:\i -
thebalance of theland could continue in agriculturaluse or in otheruses suitable for theVillage location.
2.1.2 Subjectto furtherdiscussions with the HighwaysDept. safeaccess to the siteis availablefrom Audlem Road in the positionidentified in thetraffic suryey conducted by SavellBird & Axonin 2006. Thisaccess provides sightlines of 120metres bothways 2.4 backf romthe kerb
2.1.3The Southern part of thesite is central to thevillage and the partwhich is closestto existingdevelopments. The criteria for exceptionssites would apply to aroundfive acres of the existingfield. However,only 0.4 ha wouldbe neededfor the housingneeds in theforeseeable future.
2.1"4There are at leasttwo suitable locations for development of housingon siteA. Forpurposes of thefeasibility 'Option 1' willbe a sitef ronting onto Long Hill Lane and 'Optton 2' willbe a sitewith frontage on AudlemRoad.
2.2 Site B
2.2.1The land area of thesuggested enclosure is 0.285ha and shouldbe sufficientfor 4-5 houseunits. Further adjacent land rnightbe availableto theside or rear.
2.2.2Access via an existingdrive would provide the bestsight linesto AudlemRoad, 100 metres plus to theNorth. Southwest thesight line would be limitedto 70 metresunless further land wasavailable for boundaryadjustment. lf the existingdrive was notavailable for accessthen the site would not be viable.
2.2"3The site is adjacentto thedevelopment boundary on two sidesand would be partof thegateway into the Village approachedfrom Audlem.
HankelowVillage Feasibility Study -
2"g Site G %Dz rrus UNltulftee.
2"3.1The whole site comes to approx"1.95 ha, of which1 .5 ha couldretain its current agricultural use. Thewhole 6-8 houses couldbe accommodated.
2.3.2The sitef ronts onto Hankelow Hall Lane. Access would be ontothe lanewith sight lines of 60mto the leftand 50m to theright.
2.3.3This site is reasonablycentral to theVillage. A cornerof thevillage green is visibleand the site front is adjacentto the developmentboundary and the sidenearly so. Development wouldlink up to two housesto theWest which are outside the developmentboundary"
2"4 Site D
2.4"1This site is 0"235ha and should be suitable for 3-4 houses.
2"4.2Providing a newaccess would be a problemdue to a limitedsight line to the South.There are two access ways borderingeach side of thesite" The Nook is on theSouth side andserves six housesfurther to the South.There is a wide farmaccess to the Northof thissite.
2.4.3The side of thesite is adjacentto theVillage boundary. Thereare further houses beyond the farm access to the North. A developmenthere would have the character of infill development.
2.5 Discussion
2.5.1lmpact" The question of impactis subjectivebut importantif a developmentis to be welcomedby existing residentsin thevillage. ln thewriters opinion, the impactof developmenton thevillage would be greaterat sitesA (option 2) andB. SiteA (option1), C andD wouldhave a lowimpact on thevillage.
HankelowVillage Feasibility Study -
2"5"2Access. Eachof thesites B-D appear to havesight line problems. In thecase of Sitets which fronts out onto Audlern Road this aspectcould be solvedif the developmentis ableto have controlover the heightof boundarytreatment over adjacent landto theSouth.
SiteC hasa narrowfrontage to the lane.This limits the sight lineto theWest nearside. This might be acceptableon a countrylane subject to HighwaysDept. approval.
SiteD alsofronts onto Audlem Road and its useappears to dependon whetherthe adjacentaccesses are acceptable to Highwaysand available for multi-use.
2.5.3Suitability for HousingLJse. The prospective tenants of ruralneeds houses will be familiarwith the areaand will have preferenceswhich can be canvassedlater. Generally, the locationsaway from major roads are to be preferred.This wouldadvance the claims of sitesA (option1) and C" These twoalternatives also offer enough land for the whole development.Even if developmentis phased,there is economicadvantage in beingable to concentrateon a single siteboth for the buildingprocess and ongoing management. Accessroads for a 6-10house development would be constructedto adoptablestandards. Other factors such as the suitabilityof the groundand levels and services appear to be adequatein the identifiedlocations.
3. Casefor Developmentof SiteA
3.1 LandUse
3.1.1The present use is agricultural.An expertassessment of thisparticular part of thefarm owned by theThelwell family is attachedat AppendixA. g.1.2Continued use of agriculturalland remains appropriate in thecontext of thevillage centre but 'set aside' would not be appropriate.A visualquality is requlredfor this location and alsoa needfor the landto be seenas useful.However the village'sneed for opengreen space as suchis satisfiedwith the
HankelowVillage Feasibility Study -
sizeand quality of the nearbyVillage Green. This is centralto thevillage and the defining element in the villagescape. The VillageGreen together with the White Lion pub, give Hankelow itsunique character.
3"1"3The change of useto localneeds housing from agriculturaluse is in accordancewith planning policy provided thatthe needsare confirmed by a localsurvey. lt is unlikely thatbrownfield land will be availableand therefore agricultural landof marginalquality will be the nextconsideration. The incentivefor landownersto seekapproval for exceptionssites hasto be socialand practical rather than solely financial as the landvalue on planningapproval would be a lowmultiple of agriculturalvalue.
3"1.4For the purposes of thisstudy it is assumedthat approval willbe sought for change of useof 0"4ha of SiteA andthe remainderwould remain in agriculturaluse or be developedfor socialand recreationaluses for the benefitof theVillage and neighbourhood.Either way, the open ngreen' character is expectedto remain"Further study and community surveys wouldbe neededto be undertakento establishif anyother amenityuses would be viableand are therefore outside the scopeof thispaper.
3.2 Context
3.2.1The largerpart of the residentialproperty at Hankelowis containedwithin the developmentboundary. However the furtherhouses which are outside the boundaryare still part of thevillage community. Excluding the working farm houses, thereare approximately 28 residentialproperties or 45%of the wholevillage which is outsidethe development limit. tMost of theseare adjacent to the landat A" lt followsthat the proposal to developa limitednumber of localneeds houses will not be outof context.
3.2.2The relationship of theexisting open green spaces to the villageneeds to beconsidered. The village has an openfeel if theobserver is drivingthrough on theAudlem Road. This aspectwould be modifiedsomewhat if SiteA (option2) were developedbut not lost. The newhouses would view the 'toe'of theVillage Green. Para 2.5"1 above also refers. Houses on
l-'{ankelowVillage Feasibility Study -
SiteA (option1) would tend to buildup the village character withoutimpacting on the Green
3.2.3The development on SiteA (option2) hasalready been exploredby NorthernAffordable Homes with a sketchscheme. Thiswas felt to havemajor impact on thevillage - seealso paragraphsabove. This option is thereforenot discussed furtherin thestudy.
3.3 Policy
3.3"1 Thesummary of the HousingNeeds Survey is attached as AppendixB. The locationof the housingunits to be provided to fulfilthese local needs does not have to be in Hankelowand couldfor example be in Audlem.This location would still be localenough for manytenants or co-owners.However, decantingpopulation has always been problematic and there wouldbe issuesfor car ownershipand transport. Availability of landwithin development limits for affordablehousing depends on therebeing sufficient larger commercial schemes to provide thesocial units through 'planning gain' and cross subsidy. This sourcennay be in shortsupply for several years to come.
However,the policydoes not exclude nearness, granting suitableexceptions land is available,as appearsto be thecase at Hankelow.The granting of an exceptionto policyneeds to be balancedby gainsor benefitswhich should arise, i.e.:-
* Closenessto familyand locality * Availabilityof affordableand accessible land .i. Scopeof developmentto enhancevillage and support facilities * Problematicexisting uses of theland, which applies in thiscase
HankelowVillage Feasibility Study -
3.4 Design
3"4.1A sketchlayout of 8 Nosaffondable houses ls shownin AppendixC. The housesare in pairsof semi-detachedunits. Theunits could be providedin pairsin differentsizes, probably witha mixtureof two bedand three bed layouts. The size of a typicalduplex will be a similarscale to the largerdetached housesin Hankelow"The plot sizes would permit car parking on individualsites. The layoutis intendedfor illustration purposesonly and would need to be developedin conjunction withthe LocalAuthority and the participatingHousing Association.
3.4.2The access road (see also 2.1.2 above) would be constructedto adoptablestandards with a pavementon one side. The roadis shownwith a gentlecurve leading to a T junctionwith drives each side to servethe individualunits, parkingand turning"
3.4.3Key considerations in the sitingare the existingnatural landscapefeatures of treesand pond" The sketch shows how thesecould be retainedand enhanced. The group is shown linkedwith a footpathleading across Audlem Road to the path at thetip of the HankelowVillage Green. Further landscape will be developedto enhancethe overallenvironment.
HankelowVillage Feasibility Study -
APPENDIXA
Summaryof AgriculturalAppraisal -
I. INTRODUCTION
This reporc has been prepared by Rostons following instructions from Mr D E Thelwell,Standpipe Cottage, Ellesmere Lane, Penley, Wrexham LLl3 OLR for his land at Hankelow, Audlem near Crewe Cheshire which is farmed by R J & M A Thelwellof LodgeFarm, Hatherton, Nantwich, Cheshire CW5 7PG.
l.l The Land
The total field amounts to 11.447 acres (4.633 hectares)the land is currently farmed by Mr RichardThelwell. This is an isolated block of poorer qualiryagricultural land.
1.2 Purpose of report
This supporting statement has been prepared to accompanyan application for part of the land to be put forward as a site for affordablehousing in the AudlemWard within the districtof Crewe and NantwichBorough Council.
This statementaims to set out why the landis marginalfor agricultureand it represents an opportunity for Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council to satisfythe identified needsfor affordablehousing within the Audlem Ward and wider Crewe & Nantwich Borough.
This statementaims to set out why this block of land representsan ideal locationfor sucha use and should be read in context of the report prepared by R & A Netherwood, Chartered Architects.
Accordingly,Rostons havevisited the land to collate factual information about the existinguse of the landits conditionand suitabilityto support profitableagricultural enterprises. z. THE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
This is dealtwith in the accompanyingrepom from R & A Netherwood,Chartered Architects.
3. BACKGROUND TO THE EXISTING USE OF THE LAND
The field is currendyoccupied by MessrsThelwell at LodgeFarm, Hatherton which is approximately2.5 milesaway.
Due to the natureof localland and the factthat the landis surroundedon 3 sidesby housingand to the eastby HankelowGolf Club, it is an isolatedblock of agricultural landthat makesit more marginaland difficultto farm. -
4. FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND CROPPING
The issuesassociated with the isolatedposition of the site and the poor quality of the landfurther increaseits marginalityas land that can be profitablyfarmed.
There are significantareas of the field that cannot be farmed due to poor drainage, soil type and historic uses that mean the land is not suitablefor any form of agriculturalactivity. The plan attachedat appendix2 showsthe areasshaded in blue that are poor qualityland.
The proximity to the golf club, meansthat a significantarea of land to the east of the field is prone to golf ballsbeing hit over the hedgeand landingin the field. This is potentiallydamaging to grazinglivestock if the field were to be used for grazingand damagingto farm machinerythat might enter, suchas combineharvesters.
lf golf ballswere to enter the silagecrop harvestedfrom the land,this would again be potentiallyharmful to livestock.
4.1 Grazingand Grass
The field could be let for grazing purposes or kept in house for grazing purposes. An indicativevalue would be in the region of t40-f50 per acre for seasonalgrazing rights and it has a marginalprice equivalentfor Messrs Thelwell to grazeit themselves.
The isolatednature of the field increasesthe difficultlyin usingthe field for grazingpurposes as livestockwould be away from the farm and difficult to superviseand manage.
lf the landwere usedfor forageconservation, either for silageor hay,due to the poor qualityland crops would be low yieldingand expensive to grow. As the landis isolatedit would be more expensiveto harvestand transport the crops backto the farm.
4.2 ArableCropping
The poorly drained areas mean that arable crops do not perform well, especiallyin years of high rainfall.The areasshown in blue extend further into the field makingit difficultto ploughand cultivatethe land,leading to very low yieldand stuntedcrops of low valueand marginalprofitability.
lf the land were let to grow maizeor other arablecrops, a rental figure would be between f60 and {80 per acre. Better qualityhigh yielding land couldattract pricesin excessof tl20 per acre.
lf the landwere usedfor the contractgrowing of maize,good maizecrops attract in the regionof f350-f400 per acre,however it is likelythat this field would attract a significantlyreduced income, in the regionof {225 per acre asthe cropswould be of lower feedvalue. 4.3 Environmentalstewardship schemes
The field is unlikelyto be suitablefor entry into any environmentalscheme as the land is isolatedand the adjoingolf club areasare nor managedin an environmentallyenhancing or beneficialway.
4.4 FinancialPer{ormance
The table of gross marginsand cost of production figuresfor Winter Wheat, Maizeand Grasscrop attachedat appendix3 shows examplesof how crops grown on this landare unlikelyto be profitable.
Winter Wheat - Cost of production:-f 150 per ton, the current market price in {90 per ton.
Maize- Cost of production is {29.961tonor L299.60 per acre. The market valuesof Maize silagerange between tl8-{221t or down to {225 per acre (for poor crops) respectively.
Grass- Cost of productionis t49.70 per acre to assumeone cut of silage and subsequentgrazing of the crop. When added to the previously indicatedvalues of between t40-{50 per acre for seasonalgrazing, then any profits earnedfrom the growing of grasscrops would be extremely marginal on this land.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
It is shown this isolatedblock of agriculturalland hasmarginal value for agricukural purposesand could be betcerused for communityand socialpurposes in supplying areasfor greenopen accessland along with someareas being used for the supplyof plotsfor the constructionof affordablehousing.
The report from R & A Netherwood, CharreredArchitecrs, goes on to explain how this land could fit within the affordablehousing needs of Crewe and Nantwich BoroughCouncil. -
APPENDIXB
Summaryof HousingNeeds Survey - APPENDX b
AudlemWard Rurcl Housing Needs Survey Assessment November / b ecember2AOT
On the 7rh November2OQ7 o rurol housingneeds survey questionnoire wss sent out to all the householdsin the Audlemward. The purposewos to ossess iha housingneeris in ihe wordporiicuioriy in respeciof offorciobiehousing.
The responsewos excellent with o very good return rate ond some 'enthusiestiesnswers.
The resultsare shownfirstly by the wholeword ond then brokendown into pcrishes.
There will oppearto be onomoliesin monyof the resuhs. This is for q numberof reosons:some of the questionswere multiplechoice; some of the questionnaireswere not fiiieci in correctiyonci some of the questionswere not completed.There is no criticism whotsoeverof the respondents. Afthoughevery ottempt wos modeto keep the questionnqireos simpleos
nossibleit inavitablv"'-'I confusad soma*. H.awever it is felt that the essessnnep.t is os occurqte qs procticoble.
BobVoss
Eosfrlireshire Ruroi i-iousing Enobier
Januory2008 Numberof Questionnaires
5ent Returned Returned%
Wqrd 1660 559 (9 with Porishnot 34% specified) Audlem 889 3A2 34%
Buerton 201 46 23%
Docicoftcum Wiikesiey l3z1 53 34./"
Hankelow 110 51 46%
Newhqll 306 98 32%
Respondentswere qsked if there were ony odults in the householdwho wishedto form o seporotehousehold. These ore termed'Hidden' Households (percentages are shown in relotion to the number of returned guesfionncires)
Number Percentoqe lr r--J It =al Yvqr(l 77 tJ, I to Audlem 31 1A3% Buerton 5 to.9% Dodcettcunn Wilkeslev L7 ?2 1"L Honkelow 5 9.8% Newholl 18 18.4% -
'hidden' Wherethe householdis reguiredoutside the porishor boroughqnd o lsekof affo'"dablehousing is e fsetor
Number Percentaqe Word 4L 53% Audlem L4 45% Buerton 1 20% Dodcottcum Wilkesley 11 65% Honkelow 2 4A% Newhqll 13 72%
Whenmove is required
u-t Year bt Years 1-5 YeArS 3-5 Years Wsrd 32 23 10 5 Audlem 13 8 4 3 D'an*^n 1 2 1 PggI I Ult t L' I Dodcottcum Wilkesley I 4 3 0 Honkelow 2 2 1 0 Neurhsll 7 6 2 L
Whereis occommodotionpreterred (multiple choice question)
Number Audlem 37 Buerton L6 Dodcottcum Wilkesley 23 Hqnkelow t6 Newhall t7 MinimumNumber of Bedroomsrequired in'hidden' households
1+ 2+ J+ Word t7 35 5 Audlem 6 L6 5 Buerton 1 2 o Dodcottcum Wilkesley 3 7 4 Honkelow 1 ? 1 Newholl 5 I 3
Numbersof 'hidden'householdswith children
I Cntrct I Cntfiren Word 2 4 Audlem 0 4
Dr.oa*^s Pltr?t I lrt I n n Dodcottcum Wilkesley I 0 Honkelow 0 0 Newhell L 0
PreterredTenure of 'hidden'household (multiple choice question)
Renting 5lrbsidised Residentiol Open lAonket ownenship eare housins Word ?3 ?9 L 3? Audlem t2 10 0 10 Elrrantnn L 2 n ? Dodcottcum Wilkeslev 6 7 0 6 Honkelow 1 ? 0 3 Newhsll 2 7 t 11 Numberof personsthqt hovemoved out of their porishor the borough within the lost 5 veorsand rnrould wish to return
wouldwish to return Unsune Word 6t 49 Audlem 33 31 Buerton 10 3 Dodcottcum Wilkesley 6 6 Honkelow 3 4 Newholl 9 5
'Hidden'Households Combinationof the totol numberof ondthose wishing to return to the orea(onswering'yes' to obove)
Hidden Wishirg to Totql Households returt Word 77 6t 138 Audlem 32 33 65 Buerton 5 10 t5 Dodcotfcum Wilkesley t7 6 23 Honkelow 5 3 8 lrlewhall 18 9 27
Whot tyPeof tenurewould be consideredby thosewishing to return to the area( multiplechoice)
RENTED SUBSIDISED oPENiTIARKET OWNERSHIP O\,VNERSHIP Wqrd 30 33 63 Audlem 20 ?? 38 Buerton 4 5 10 Dodcottcum Wilkesley 4 5 4 Hqnkelow ? 2 4 Newholl 0 o 7 -
APPENDIXC
SketchPlan of Development 6 = O o
i^/'\i I \) a \
-=si = ,]i -tl TD3\ ot 0n ol()1 ol
I I ' t. jt_l I .?n sb 'f edz^ :f r -v';frr i F \ \!i , '':.'2------.- ---:_..-_u z - C X t
X G, (bl 'cQ^ -h 'i---/i--r _r'\ a .i'.ri'-/ \ \ &:-e-=g ?w
tl \.\ € \
/ I TosStQee \ Ca*<.l^
l-histledown