LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 1
REPLACEMENT MENDIP DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN October 2012
Technical Paper Update Rural Settlement Role & Function Paper
2012 Update
This update has been prepared in light of a number of changes that have occurred since the publication of the original Rural Settlement Role and Function Paper. As the paper is based on information regarding facilities and services found in villages across the district these are always going to be subject to changes and it is important that decisions made based on this evidence are informed by the most up to date information.
There has also been a change in government policy since the publication of the original technical paper in 2010. The original paper detailed the relevant parts of the Planning Policy Statements and Guidance which together made up national planning policy. The current government have condensed these documents into one – the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The parts of the NPPF that are considered relevant are now detailed below in Section 1: Review of Current and Relevant Policy
Changes in facilities and service provision Since the original Rural Settlement Role & Function Technical Paper was published in 2010 there have been a number of changes regarding service provision across the rural area. Somerset County Council undertook a review of their funding of bus services. This resulted in a number of services being reduced however none of the villages listed within the Local Plan Part I as primary or secondary villages have lost the ‘journey to work’ bus service required. In terms of other ‘core facilities’ (primary school, shop meeting a range of daily basic needs and a meeting place such as a pub or village hall) there have been two losses. These are:
Binegar/Gurney Slade: The primary school at Binegar has been closed. This means that Binegar/Gurney Slade are no longer classified as a primary village but are now classified as a secondary village.
Pilton Pilton village shop has now closed. Pilton was previously classified as a secondary village but the loss of this service means that it will now be classified as open countryside.
Introduction
The intention of this paper is to provide an analysis of the rural communities across Mendip to understand their roles as places in meeting the needs of the rural population. Rural communities have grown and evolved over time, primarily reflecting the ebbs and flows of industries like agriculture and mining. However, whilst these industries are still important in the context of the rural economy, during the post war period greater affluence and mobility have combined to create a far more diverse role for the countryside, and for local people, opportunities, challenges and conflicts have emerged.
This study does not proclaim to fully understand the detailed workings of Mendip’s village communities because they are complex and dynamic places where changing socio-economic profiles mean that views and values vary. Instead the study aims to understand the qualities of villages as places to live, limitations and constraints which exist and opportunities which new development or other investment could unlock to improve quality of life and promote sustainable economic diversification. The study partially compliments the portraits of place which were prepared for each of the Mendip Towns in 2008.
Informing sustainable patterns of development through the Local Development Framework is the primary purpose of the study. Difficult as they may be, choices need to be made about the manner in which we continue to manage development in the countryside whilst also ensuring that its intrinsic value as a resource (using any definition) is safeguarded for future generations.
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 2
1.0 Review of Current and Relevant Policy
1.1 This section aims to draw out the key messages from a number of key policy documents to inform the reader of the general direction of the broad framework within which the debate about rural development is taking place.
1.2 Until the summer of 2010 Regional Spatial Strategies were intended to establish an overall policy framework for local policy making. The emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West set out a broad spatial strategy to guide Local Development Frameworks on the broad location of new development and established housing targets for each district. The incoming coalition government has moved to abolish RSS and the strategic level guidance it contained.
1.3 Following a complete review of the National Planning Policy Framework, the following sections appear most relevant: Para 17: Core Planning Principles: - v) take account of the different roles and character of different areas, …recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving communities within it - vi) allocations of land should prefer land of lesser environmental value… - viii) promote mixed use developments and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas…. - x) actively manage patterns of growth to make fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable
Para 28: …The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel.
Para 30: In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.
Para 37: Planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities.
Para 152: Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, measures to mitigate the impact should be considered. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate.
1.4 The key messages can be summarised to be: Meeting objectively assessed needs in a manner that is responsive to each place Promoting development in locations with transport choices Improving the balance of uses in a particular place to reduce travel demands Make effective use of previously developed land and otherwise land of lesser environmental quality
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 3
1.5 The Taylor Review: A Living Working Countryside is a study commissioned by the previous (Labour) government to review planning policy and the delivery of housing in the countryside. The review’s key message is that current planning policy can easily cause settlements to fall into a ‘sustainability trap’, where development is restricted in locations considered unsustainable, which then causes that settlement to decline and become still less sustainable. There are a number of specific recommendations relevant to Local Development Frameworks:
Planning policy should balance all three strands of sustainability – economic, social and environmental rather than giving more weight to environmental sustainability Local planning authorities should work with their local communities to assess how their environmental, social and economic needs can be met through the LDF as it is developed, working towards a clear vision of the future for each settlement built on consultation with the people who live there. Local planning authorities must ensure that affordable housing needs are met. It should be recognised that rural economies have an important contribution to make to regional and national economies and that all types of business and enterprise can be appropriate to rural areas, subject to assessment of impact based on local circumstances and conditions. Development in rural areas should not necessarily be refused simply on the grounds of lack of access by public transport, as this is currently a significant barrier to rural economic development. Decisions on rural employment sites should be based on evidence addressing the supply of employment sites in the local community so that its sustainability is protected and enhanced. Account should be taken of changing spatial working patterns: home-based working and workspace extensions to the home should be supported subject to assessment of local impacts1
Key Issues
1.10 The key issues to draw out of this current policy are:
Local Planning Authorities need to ensure that suitable land is available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve quality of life. It is important that these three strands of sustainability are balanced when planning for future development in rural areas New development in open countryside must be strictly controlled with exceptions only for those who by nature of their job need to reside in such a location Good quality development should be allowed in villages if it benefits the local community and the local economy Accessibility is a key factor in development decisions All planning documents prepared by Local Planning Authorities need to be in accordance with national policy
2.0 Data Collection
2.1 A number of different types of data have been used in compiling this paper. Initially, a Rural Facilities Survey was sent out to each parish in the district in April 2008. Each parish was asked to complete one survey for each village in the parish. The survey included questions on: the types and levels of services and facilities in villages what social and sports clubs are available what employment offer exists what the community value about their village whether the community are in favour of future development, and if so, what type of development they would like to see
2.2 A response rate of 59% was received accounting for 65 out of 110 villages. This data has been used alongside that gained through desktop research, face to face meetings, correspondence and other contact with communities.
1 DCLG (2008) ‘Living, Working Countryside: The Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing’ LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 4
2.3 Other data has been drawn from a range of sources including
Office for National Statistics (ONS) Population data National Online Manpower Information System (NOMIS) Analysis of public transport Local Mapping of national and local constraints. Available Parish Plans
2.4 The following sections now go on to examine facets of village communities
Section 3 – Size of Settlement Section 4 – The range of available local services Section 5 – Availability and quality of public transport services Section 6 – Indicative levels of local employment including home working Section 7 - Environmental and Infrastructure constraints Section 8 – Recent development levels Section 9 – Local Views – survey and parish plan outcomes (where available)
2.5 Section 10 then goes on to analyse the data and draw conclusions about the manner in which places operate and their relative suitability for new development.
3.0 Population Size
3.1 Firstly the size of the settlements within the district was examined in terms of population. The Council’s GIS program MapInfo was used to determine the number of households within each settlement. The 2001 Census average household size data was then used to calculate an approximate population for each settlement. 2001 Census parish headcount data was used as a basis for this examination2.
3.2 The number of people and households found in each settlement can be found in Table A.
Table A: Settlement populations Village Population Number of households Alhampton 165 73 Baltonsborough 746 302 Batcombe 259 109 Beckington 847 359 Berkley 62 24 Binegar 185 74 Bleadney & Henton 248 105 Buckland Dinham 343 140 Butleigh 738 310 Chantry 148 59 Charterhouse 29 11 Chesterblade 39 17 Chewton Mendip 254 101 Chilcompton 2109 799 Clapton 158 64 Coleford 2421 953 Coxley (incl. Coxley Wick & Upper Coxley) 670 290 Cranmore 309 122 Croscombe 568 247 Dean 89 35
2 Office of National Statistics – Population by parish LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 5
Village Population Number of households Dinder 143 62 Ditcheat 442 179 Doulting 273 105 Downhead 86 34 Draycott 1042 429 Dulcote 122 53 East Compton 51 21 East Horrington 113 49 East Pennard 64 27 Easton 402 174 Emborough 62 25 Evercreech 1949 855 Farleigh Hungerford 70 30 Faulkland 300 123 Foxcote 27 11 Godney 205 76 Great Elm 123 54 Green Ore 43 17 Gurney Slade 668 266 Haybridge 194 84 Haydon 28 12 Hemington 54 22 Holcombe 985 402 Hornblotton 18 7 Kilmersdon 261 108 Lamyatt 149 56 Laverton 87 33 Leigh on Mendip 415 166 Litton 172 67 Lottisham 55 22 Lullington 66 25 Lydford (inc. West, East & Lydford on 384 155 Fosse) Meare 945 389 Mells 504 225 Milton Clevedon 50 21 North Wootton 266 107 Norton St Philip 720 309 Nunney 831 358 Oakhill 714 288 Oldford 135 55 Pilton 759 311 Polsham 67 29 Prestleigh 78 34 Priddy 218 84 Pylle 128 50 Rode 966 439 Rodney Stoke 228 94 Rudge 68 29 Sharpham 12 5 South Horrington 802 347 Standerwick 73 28 Stoke St Michael 781 311 Ston Easton 269 109 Stratton on the Fosse 555 236 Tellisford 34 15 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 6
Village Population Number of households Trudoxhill 216 82 Tytherington 44 18 Upton Noble 137 58 Vobster 103 46 Walton 943 377 Wanstrow 352 139 West Bradley 40 16 West Compton 24 10 West Horrington 146 63 West Pennard 391 152 Westbury-sub-Mendip 817 335 Westhay 245 101 Whatley 83 33 Witham Friary 237 84 Wookey 734 311 Wookey Hole 450 195 Woolverton 72 32 Worth 38 16 Wraxall 101 41 Yarley 66 28
4.0 Extent of Local Services
4.1 This set of data looks at the range and level of services and facilities in each village. This data has been informed by results of the Rural Facilities Survey, desktop research and local knowledge. The services and facilities looked for are:
Post Office Food shop that offers a range of basic daily needs Pub Village hall Primary school GP Place of worship Petrol station Cashpoint
This list is considered to be comprehensive and a recognisable reflection of the facilities needed for everyday, reasonably self-contained living in the district. Other services and facilities do occur and provide local people with variety but are considered less critical in this assessment.
4.2 Data gaps – there is data lacking for some of the very small villages and hamlets. This is in part due to a lack of response to the Rural Facilities Survey for these places. Therefore local knowledge and research has had to fill this void where possible.
4.3 Each settlement has been given a score based on the extent of services and facilities found within it. Table B details those facilities and services found within each settlement. The score associated with different services and facilities has been weighted in relation to their regarded importance. The scoring system can be found below:
Facility/Service Score Primary school 3 Village shop 2 Post Office 2 Village hall 2 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 7
Pub 2 GP 3 Place of worship 1 Cashpoint 1 Petrol station 1
Table B: Extent of Services and Facilities
Village Score
GP
Pub
Petrol Petrol
station
School
Placeof worship
Cashpoint
Foodshop
Post Office Post VillageHall
Alhampton ● ● 3 Baltonsborough ● ● ● ● ● ● 12 Batcombe ● ● 4 Beckington ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 15 Berkley ● ● 4 Binegar ● ● 3 Bleadney & Henton ● ● 3 Buckland Dinham ● ● 3 Butleigh ● ● ● ● ● 10 Chantry ● ● 3 Charterhouse ● 1 Chesterblade ● 1 Chewton Mendip ● ● ● ● ● 10 Chilcompton ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 17 Clapton ● 2 Coleford ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 15 Coxley (incl. Coxley Wick 8 & Upper Coxley) ● ● ● ● Cranmore ● ● ● 5 Croscombe ● ● ● ● ● 10 Dean ● 1 Dinder ● ● 3 Ditcheat ● ● ● ● ● 10 Doulting ● ● ● 6 Downhead 0 Draycott ● ●3 ● ● ● ● 14 Dulcote ● 1 East Compton 0 East Horrington ● 1 East Pennard ● ● 3 Easton ● ● ● 4 Emborough ● 2 Evercreech ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 16 Farleigh Hungerford ● ● 4 Faulkland ● ● 4 Foxcote ● 1 Godney ● ● ● 5 Great Elm ● 2 Green Ore ● 2
3 Service added in light of consultation, refer to section 11 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 8
Village Score
GP
Pub
Petrol Petrol
station
School
Placeof worship
Cashpoint
Foodshop
Post Office Post VillageHall
Gurney Slade ● ● ● ● 8 Haybridge 0 Haydon ● 2 Hemington ● ● 4 Holcombe ● ● ● 6 Hornblotton ● ● 3 Kilmersdon ● ● ● ● 6 Lamyatt ● ● 3 Laverton ● 1 Leigh on Mendip ● ● ● ● 8 Litton ● 1 Lottisham 0 Lullington ● 1 Lydford incl. West, East & Lydford on Fosse ● ● ● ● ● ● 10 Meare ● ● ● ● ● 9 Mells ● ● ● ● ● ● 12 Milton Clevedon ● 1 North Wootton ● ● ● 5 Norton St Philip ● ● ● ● 8 Nunney ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 15 Oakhill ● ● ● ● ● 11 Oldford ● 2 Pilton ● ● ● ● 7 Polsham 0 Prestleigh ● ● 3 Priddy ● ● ● ● ● ● 11 Pylle ● ● ● ● 6 Rode ● ● ● ● ● ● 12 Rodney Stoke ● ● ● 5 Rudge ● ● 3 Sharpham 0 South Horrington 0 Standerwick ● 2 Stoke St Michael ● ● ● ● ● ● 12 Ston Easton ● ● 3 Stratton on the Fosse 4 ● ● 5 ● 5 Tellisford ● 1 Trudoxhill ● ● ● 5 Tytherington ● ● 3 Upton Noble ● ● ● ● 8 Vobster ● ● 4 Walton ● ● ● ● 8 Wanstrow ● ● ● 5 West Bradley ● 1 West Compton 0 West Horrington ● ● ● 6 West Pennard ● ● ● ● 8 Westbury-sub-Mendip ● ● ● ● ● 10
4 Service removed in light of consultation, refer to section 11 5 Service removed in light of consultation, refer to section 11 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 9
Village Score
GP
Pub
Petrol Petrol
station
School
Placeof worship
Cashpoint
Foodshop
Post Office Post VillageHall
Westhay ● ● ● ● 8 Whatley ● ● 3 Witham Friary ● ● ● 5 Wookey ● ● ● ● 6 Wookey Hole ● ● ● 5 Woolverton ● 2 Worth 0 Wraxall 0 Yarley 0
5.0 Accessibility by Public Transport
5.1 Mendip contains only one railway station which is located at Frome. Therefore in this section a detailed study was done of the accessibility of settlements by buses. The main source of data used was a bus timetable book covering the whole of Mendip, dated June 2009.6
5.2 Each settlement was given a score based on the level of bus service provision it receives. Firstly examined was if the settlement has a journey to work bus service. This is a service that will get a worker from the settlement to a nearby town or larger urban area before 9am and returns from the employment centre after 5pm. Although the table below differentiates between a journey to work service to a Mendip town and a journey to work service to an SSCT (Strategically Significant City or Town e.g. Bath, Bristol, Taunton, Yeovil), this is for information only and the scoring is the same for both. Secondly a daily bus service was looked for and this is defined as at least one service from and to the settlement six days a week. In many cases there is more than just one service per day. The last tier includes those settlements that only receive a weekly service on one day per week and in all cases this involves one service to a town and returning on the same day.
5.3 Settlements have been scored based on the top level of bus service provided for each. If a settlement has a journey to work bus service, a daily bus service and a weekly bus service the first level is the only one scored. An extra point has been awarded if a service returns to a settlement after 9pm in the evening. Therefore the maximum score a settlement can achieve is 4. The scoring system can be found below.
Level of service Score A journey to work service to an employment centre (this can be in Mendip or outside the district and constitute towns and larger urban areas) 3 A daily bus service at any time from the settlement to a town/city and back again 2 A weekly bus service (settlements served once a week) 1 A service that arrives into the settlement from a larger town/city after 9pm 1 Not served by bus at all 0
6 Public Transport Timetable for the Mendip Area (June 2009) Issue 40 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 10
Table C: Accessibility of settlements by public bus services Village Journey to work Journey to Bus Daily bus Weekly Score bus service to a work bus service service at bus major centre service to a arriving any time to service (e.g. Bath, Mendip town back after and from Taunton) 9pm settlement Alhampton ● ● 3 Baltonsborough ● ● 3 Batcombe ● 1 Beckington ● ● ● ● 4 Berkley ● 1 Binegar ● ● ● 3 Bleadney & ● ● ● 3 Henton Buckland Dinham ● ● 3 Butleigh ● ● 3 Chantry ● ● 3 Charterhouse ● 1 Chesterblade 0 Chewton Mendip ● ● ● ● 4 Chilcompton ● ● ● 3 Clapton 0 Coleford ● ● ● 3 Coxley (incl. Coxley Wick & ● ● ● 3 Upper Coxley) Cranmore ● 2 Croscombe ● ● 3 Dean ● 2 Dinder ● ● 3 Ditcheat ● ● 3 Doulting ● ● 3 Downhead 0 Draycott ● ● ● ● 4 Dulcote 0 East Compton 0 East Horrington 0 East Pennard ● 1 Easton 0 Emborough 0 Evercreech ● ● ● ● 3 Farleigh 0 Hungerford Faulkland ● ● 3 Foxcote 0 Godney ● 1 Great Elm ● ● ● 3 Green Ore 0 Gurney Slade ● ● ● 3 Haybridge ● ● ● ● 4 Haydon 0 Hemington 0 Holcombe ● ● ● 3 Hornblotton 0 Kilmersdon ● ● 3 Lamyatt ● 1 Laverton 0 Leigh on Mendip ● ● 3 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 11
Village Journey to work Journey to Bus Daily bus Weekly Score bus service to a work bus service service at bus major centre service to a arriving any time to service (e.g. Bath, Mendip town back after and from Taunton) 9pm settlement Litton ● 1 Lottisham 0 Lullington 0 Lydford incl. 3 West, East & ● ● ● Lydford on Fosse Meare ● ● 3 Mells ● ● ● 3 Milton Clevedon 0 North Wootton 0 Norton St Philip ● ● ● ● 4 Nunney ● ● 3 Oakhill ● ● 3 Oldford ● ● ● ● 4 Pilton ● ● ● 3 Polsham 0 Prestleigh ● ● 3 Priddy ● 1 Pylle ● 1 Rode ● ● ● ● 4 Rodney Stoke 0 Rudge ● 1 Sharpham 0 South Horrington ● ● ● 3 Standerwick ● 1 Stoke St Michael ● ● 3 Ston Easton 0 Stratton on the ● ● ● 3 Fosse Tellisford 0 Trudoxhill ● 1 Tytherington ● 1 Upton Noble ● 1 Vobster ● ● 3
Walton ● ● ● 3 Wanstrow ● 1 West Bradley College 2 service West Compton 0 West Horrington ● ● ● 3 West Pennard ● ● ● 3 Westbury-sub- ● ● ● ● 4 Mendip Westhay ● ● 3 Whatley ● 2 Witham Friary ● 2 Wookey ● ● ● 3 Wookey Hole ● ● ● 3 Woolverton ● ● ● ● 4 Worth 0 Wraxall 0 Yarley 0
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 12
6.0 Employment
6.1 The data looked at for this section is based around the 2006 NOMIS Annual Business Enquiry7. This data provides numbers of jobs within the district’s wards, based on the ward boundaries dating pre 2003. Although this data does not give a breakdown of the numbers of jobs in each settlement it does give a good indication of those wards with better employment opportunities and economic activity.
6.2 In order to assess the level of employment the total number of households for the settlements in each ward was calculated using data collected from our mapping system (the same data used in section 3.1 to calculate settlement’s populations). The ratio of local full time jobs to the number of households was then calculated. This can be found as a percentage in Table D below.
Table D: Ratio of jobs to households for Mendip wards Total Ratio of local full Ward Total Settlements in ward number time jobs to number (Pre 2003) households of jobs of households Ashwick & Binegar, Clapton, Emborough 1409 1015 72% Ston Easton Gurney Slade, Oakhill, Ston Easton Avalon Baltonsborough, Butleigh 953 414 43% West Pennard Cranmore, Dean, Doulting, Beacon Downhead, Leigh on Mendip, 1118 1035 93% Prestleigh, Stoke St Michael Beckington & Beckington, Berkley, Rode, Rudge, 1010 881 87% Rode Standerwick, Tellisford, Woolverton Chilcompton Chilcompton 769 702 91% Coleford Coleford 925 292 32% Chesterblade ,Evercreech 960 1043 108% Creech Milton Clevedon Knowle Bleadney & Henton, Westbury sub 859 435 51% Mendip, Wookey, Worth, Yarley Chantry, Great Elm, Mells Mells Oldford, Trudoxhill, Tytherington, 699 1642 235% Vobster, Whatley Moor Godney, Meare, Sharpham 1059 553 52% Walton, Westhay Chewton Mendip, Dinder, Dulcote, Nedge East Horrington, Green Ore, 920 490 53% Haydon, Litton, South Horrington West Horrington Buckland Dinham, Farleigh Nordinton Hungerford, Faulkland, Foxcote, 866 769 89% Hemington, Laverton, Lullington Norton St Philip Postlebury Batcombe, Nunney, Upton Noble, 925 490 53% Wanstrow, Witham Friary Croscombe, East Compton Pylcombe North Wootton, Pilton, Pylle 826 388 47% West Compton Rodney & Charterhouse, Draycott 749 303 40% Priddy Priddy, Rodney Stoke St Cuthbert Coxley, Easton, Haybridge 824 1318 160% Out Polsham, Wookey Hole Stratton Holcombe, Kilmersdon 1035 713 69% Stratton on the Fosse Alhampton, Ditcheat, East Pennard, Vale Hornblotton, Lamyatt, Lottisham 751 493 66% Lydford (East, West & on Fosse)
7 NOMIS Annual Business Enquiry for Mendip District Wards 2006 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 13
6.3 Another set of data looked at in relation to employment and economic self containment of settlements was the average distance residents’ travel to work and the percentage of working people who work from home. This data is based on 2001 census data.
Table E: Percentage of people who work from home and average distance travelled to work Percentage of Average distance Ward Settlements within ward people who work travelled to work from home Ashwick & Ston Binegar ,Clapton, Emborough, 15% 18km Easton Gurney Slade, Oakhill, Ston Easton Avalon Baltonsborough, Butleigh 21% 20km West Pennard Beacon Cranmore, Dean, Doulting, Downhead, Leigh on Mendip 19% 17km Prestleigh, Stoke St Michael Beckington & Beckington, Berkley, Rode, Rudge 21% 20km Rode Standerwick, Tellisford, Woolverton Chilcompton Chilcompton 12% 15km Coleford Coleford 10% 14km Creech Chesterblade, Evercreech 14% 15km Milton Clevedon Knowle Bleadney & Henton, Westbury sub 20% 17km Mendip, Wookey, Worth, Yarley Chantry, Great Elm, Mells, Oldford Mells Trudoxhill, Tytherington 25% 18km Vobster, Whatley Moor Godney, Meare, Sharpham, Walton 16% 14km Westhay Chewton Mendip, Dinder, Dulcote, Nedge East Horrington, Green Ore 18% 18km Haydon, Litton, South Horrington West Horrington Buckland Dinham, Farleigh Nordinton Hungerford, Faulkland, Foxcote 18% 19km Hemington, Laverton, Lullington, Norton St Philip Postlebury Batcombe, Nunney, Upton Noble 22% 20km Wanstrow, Witham Friary Pylcombe Croscombe, East Compton, North 20% 16km Wootton, Pilton, Pylle West Compton Rodney & Priddy Charterhouse, Draycott, Priddy, 21% 20km Rodney Stoke Wookey & St Coxley, Easton, Haybridge 23% 15km Cuthbert Out Polsham, Wookey Hole West Stratton Holcombe, Kilmersdon 15% 15km Stratton on the Fosse Vale Alhampton, Ditcheat, East Pennard 24% 21km Hornblotton, Lamyatt, Lottisham Lydford (East, West & on Fosse)
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 14
7.0 Constraints
7.1 This section looks at the environmental and infrastructure constraints of settlements in the rural area. The Environment Agency’s Flood Zone mapping has been used to identify any settlements that may have flooding issues. Mapping of internationally and nationally designated wildlife sites has been used to highlight any settlements where development may have a detrimental impact on protected species and habitats. Mapping of protected landscape areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have also been used to indicate if directing development to certain settlements could have a negative impact of landscape quality.
7.2 Infrastructure constraints have also been examined such as road infrastructure and communications infrastructure e.g. internet broadband connection. Road infrastructure information has been looked at from road maps of the area and distances calculated using our geographical information system. Any information on telecommunications infrastructure is solely derived from anecdotal evidence provided from parish council responses to the Rural Facilities Survey conducted in April 2008
Table F: Environmental and infrastructure constraints Village Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Infrastructure (transport) constraints (other) Alhampton Band of Flood Zone 3a/b across Served only by minor roads north of settlement and large expanse to west within 500m Baltonsborough Band of Flood Zone 3a/b adjacent Served only by minor roads. to western side of village Approx 3.5km to A361 to north, approx 6km to A37 to south Batcombe Local Wildlife Site abuts the south Served only by minor roads of village Beckington Small band of Flood Zone 3a/b Primary Route A36 within 750m within 500m of western side of the to east of the village village along River Frome corridor Berkley Local Wildlife Site within 200m of Served by minor roads within the north east of the village 1km of A361 Binegar Very small band of Flood Zone The primary route A37 runs 3a/b runs east to west through between Binegar & Gurney villages. Slade
A number of Local Wildlife Sites surround the villages Bleadney & Large area of flood zone 3a/b is Served only by minor roads Henton situated very close to the north of the villages
River Axe Local Wildlife Site runs through the villages Buckland Small band of Flood Zone 3a/b A362 runs through the village Dinham runs north to south to the west of the village Butleigh Area of Flood Zone 3a/b lies Served only by minor roads. Broadband needs within 750m to the north east of Approx 5.6km to primary route improvement the village A361 to the north and 6.3km to (anecdotal primary route A37 to the south evidence) Chantry Mendip Woodlands Special Area Only served by minor roads of Conservation and Asham Wood SSSI within 750m to west of settlement
Charterhouse Within Mendip Hills AONB Only served by minor roads
North Somerset & Mendip Bats SAC
Very large SSSI
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 15
Village Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Infrastructure (transport) constraints (other) Chesterblade One Local Wildlife Site lies within Only served by minor roads 250m to the west of the village.
Another Local Wildlife Site lies within 500m to the south east of the village. Chewton Majority of village (western 3/4) A39 runs through village & joins Mendip lies within the Mendip Hills AONB primary route A37 approx 3.3km to the north of village Chilcompton Very small band of Flood Zone Served only by minor roads. 3a/b is located at far north of Approx 2.5km to primary route village A37 in west and approx 2.4km to A367 to the east Clapton None Only served by minor roads Coleford Small band of Flood Zone 3a/b Village is in a complicated Capacity issues runs east to west along Mells network of minor roads, very with sewerage River corridor at the southern part isolated from main routes. system (anecdotal of the village Approx 4.6km from A367 to the evidence) west and approx 6.4km to primary route A361 to the south Coxley (incl. Medium sized band of Flood Zone A39 runs through village Coxley Wick & 3a/b runs through north of village Upper Coxley) following the line of the road Cranmore Very small band of Flood Zone Served by minor roads, 250m 3a/b runs through south eastern to A361 part of village Croscombe Small band of Flood Zone 3a/b A371 runs through village but Broadband runs east to west along River road is quite narrow here currently only Sheppey corridor through the 512kb – 1mb centre of the village. A number of should be 4mb+ LWS exist around the village (anecdotal evidence) Dean None A361 runs through village Dinder Band of Flood Zone 3a/b runs Served by minor roads but east to west to the south of the village within 300m of A371 village
A Local Wildlife Site lies within 250m of the north of the village.
A second wildlife site lies within 500m of the south of the village Ditcheat Large area of Flood Zone 3a/b Served only by minor roads. lies to the south west of the Approx 1.4km to A371 to the village within 850m east and approx 2.7km to primary route A37 to the west Doulting A geological site of importance The A361 runs through the lies to the north of the village village Downhead A geological site of importance Served only by minor roads lies within 500m to the north of the site.
A Local Wildlife Site lies within 250m to the north of the site Draycott The Mendip Hills AONB lies A371 runs through the village adjacent to the north east of the village
Large area of flood zone 3a/b lies within 300m to the south of the village
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 16
Village Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Infrastructure (transport) constraints (other) Dulcote A small band of Flood Zone 3a/b The A371 lies just outside of lies over the north of the village the village
A Local Wildlife Site lies approx 200m to the south of the village.
The Dulcote Quarry site of geological importance lies within 250m to the south of the village East Compton A Local Wildlife Site lies within A361 runs very close to the 350m to the south of the site south of the village East Horrington A Local Wildlife Site lies within Served only by minor roads 350m to the south of the village East Pennard A Local Wildlife site lies Served only by minor roads immediately adjacent to the northern part of the village Easton Mendip Hills AONB lies The A371 runs through the immediately adjacent to the north village of the village.
A Local Wildlife Site lies within 500m to the east of the village Emborough None The A37 primary route runs through the village Evercreech 2 small bands of Flood Zone 3a/b Served only by minor roads. run north to south either side of Approx 1.2km to A371 in west the village within 600m and approx 3.2km to primary route A37 further to west Farleigh The village lies within the A366 runs through the village Hungerford greenbelt
A band of Flood zone 3a/b runs adjacent to the north west of the village
A Local Wildlife Site lies within 350m to the north west of the village
The village contains the scheduled ancient monument Farleigh Castle Faulkland None A366 runs through the village Foxcote Local Wildlife Site within 400m to Only served by minor roads the east of the village
Band of flood zone 3a/b runs along river corridor to the north of the village Godney Lies on a very large area of flood Served only by very small roads zone 3a/b Great Elm A SSSI lies within 450m of the Served only by minor roads village
Village has a number of Local Wildlife sites directly adjacent to it. Green Ore The majority of the village is The A39 runs through the encompassed within the Mendip village Hills AONB Gurney Slade Very small band of Flood Zone The primary route A37 runs 3a/b runs east to west through between Binegar & Gurney villages. Slade
A number of Local Wildlife Sites surround the villages
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 17
Village Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Infrastructure (transport) constraints (other) Haybridge Small area of flood zone 3a/b lies A371 runs through the village adjacent to the east of the village
Local wildlife site lies within 400m to the west of the village Haydon Lies within the Mendip Hills Served only by minor roads AONB
2 local wildlife sites adjacent to the west of the village Hemington None Served only by minor roads but A362 approx 200m from village Holcombe Sections of SSSI lie to the south Served only by minor roads west and south east of the village, within 350m
A local wildlife site lies adjacent to the east of the village and a second lies adjacent to the west Hornblotton None Served only by minor roads but A37 is within 450m of village Kilmersdon Small area of Flood Zone 3a/b lies over the north of the village. Served only by minor roads. Babington Wood Local Wildlife Approx 2.7km to A366 and Site lies to the east A362, approx 3.7km to A367 Lamyatt Local wildlife site within 450m to Served only by minor roads the east of the village Laverton 2 local wildlife sites, one to the Served only by minor roads SW and one to the SE of the village within 350m. Leigh on Local wildlife site within 450m of Within complicated network of Mendip the south of the village minor roads. Approx 3.8km from primary route A361 to the south Litton Village lies within the Mendip Hills Served only by minor roads AONB
Small band of flood zone 3a/b runs north – south through the centre of the village
Local wildlife site lies adjacent to the west of the village Lottisham None Served only by minor roads A37 approx 1km Lullington Large local wildlife site adjacent Served only by minor roads to the south of the village
Band of flood zone 3a/b runs north/south to the east of the village Lydford (incl. Band of flood zone 3a/b runs A37 runs through Lydford on West, East & on through the north of East & West Fosse Fosse) Lydford Meare The village is completely Served only by minor roads. surrounded by an extensive area Meare approx 5km to A39 at of Flood Zone 3a/b. Flood Zone Glastonbury is adjacent to the north of village and within 500m of the south. Mells Band of Flood Zone 3a/b runs Served only by minor roads. through centre of village following Approx 3.9km to A362 to east Mells River corridor. A number of of village and approx 5km to Local Wildlife Sites surround the A361 to south of village village with Mells River Local Wildlife Site running through LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 18
Village Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Infrastructure (transport) constraints (other) Milton Clevedon A small local wildlife site lies Only served by minor roads within 350m to the north of the village North Wootton Band of flood zone 3a/b runs Only served by minor roads through the village
Local wildlife site adjacent to the east of the village Norton St Philip Greenbelt lies adjacent to the A366 runs through village and north of the village primary route A36 lies approx 1.5km to the east Nunney Small band of Flood Zone 3a/b Primary route A361 lies runs north of village to south west adjacent to village at Nunney along Holwell valley Catch. A359 joins A361 at Nunney catch Oakhill None A367 runs through village, approx 1km to primary route A37 to west Oldford Band of flood zone 3a/b runs to Served only by minor roads the north west adjacent to the village Pilton Small area of flood zone 3a/b to A361 runs through the village the south west of the village
Local wildlife sites to the west and south of the village Polsham Large areas of flood zone 3a/b A39 runs to the east of the both to north and south of the village village within 300m Prestleigh None A371 runs through the village Priddy Village within Mendip Hills AONB, Served only by minor roads SSSIs and local wildlife sites Pylle None A37 runs through the village Rode Band of Flood Zone 3a/b runs Primary route A361 lies Poor broadband north to south within 300m of the adjacent to the village and connection western half of the village primary route A36 lies within (anecdotal 1.2km to west evidence) Rodney Stoke North eastern part of village A371 runs through village directly adjacent to the Mendip Hills AONB.
SSSI & Mendip Woodlands SAC within 300m of the north of village Rudge None Served only by minor roads Sharpham North, south and west of village Only served by minor roads abuts a large area of flood zone 3a/b South Western part of the village abuts Served by minor roads Horrington the Mendip Hills AONB
West of village adjacent to local wildlife site Standerwick None A36 runs through village Stoke St Two areas of Mells Valley Special Village lies within complicated Michael Area Conservation lie to the north network of minor roads. Approx east and north west of village 3km to A367 to west, approx within 500m 4km to primary route A37 to west and approx 3km to primary route A361 to south Ston Easton None A37 runs through the village Stratton on the A367 runs through village, Fosse approx 3.7m to primary route Large Local Wildlife Site lies A37 to west adjacent to SW of village LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 19
Village Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Infrastructure (transport) constraints (other) Tellisford The village lies within the green Only served by minor roads belt
A small band of flood zone 3a/b runs north to south to the east of the village
A local wildlife site lies within 500m to the north west Trudoxhill A large SSSI site lies to the south Only served by minor roads west of the village Tytherington A local wildlife site lies adjacent to Served only by minor roads but the west of the village within 500m of A361
A band of flood zone 3a/b runs north to south within 250m to the east of the village Upton Noble Local wildlife site within 500m to Only served by minor roads the north west of the village Vobster Large local wildlife site directly Only served by minor roads adjacent to the east of the village
A small band of flood zone 3a/b runs east/west through the centre of the village Walton Area of Flood Zone 3a/b lies Primary Route A39 runs Broadband needs within 500m of north of village through village improving along length. Environment (anecdotal Agency records of flooding in evidence) 2008 Wanstrow A local wildlife site lies within A359 runs through the village 450m to the west of the village West Bradley None Served only by small roads West Compton Local wildlife sites close to village Served only by minor roads on north, west and eastern sides.
A SSSI lies 450m to the north of the village West Horrington Village is within the Mendip Hills Served only by minor roads AONB
2 local wildlife sites lie in close proximity to the village, one to the west and one to the north east West Pennard None A361 runs through village Westbury-sub- A371 runs through village but is Mendip Mendip Hills AONB encompasses very narrow in places through northern half of village village Westhay The village is completely Served only by minor roads. surrounded by an extensive area Westhay approx 6000m from of Flood Zone 3a/b. Flood Zone primary route A39 at Ashcott is adjacent to the north of the village and within 500m of the south.
Somerset Levels & Moors SPA borders the north of Westhay Whatley Local wildlife site within 250m of Served only by minor roads north of the village Witham Friary Band of flood zone 3a/b runs Served only by minor roads through village Wookey Small areas of Flood Zone 3a/b Served only by minor roads. lie across southern part of village Approx 750m to A371 following the River Axe which is also a Local Wildlife Site LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 20
Village Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Infrastructure (transport) constraints (other) Wookey Hole Part of the village in Mendip Hills Served only by minor roads AONB
North Somerset & Mendip Bats SAC in very close proximity to the north of the village.
Band of flood zone 3a/b runs through the village Woolverton None A36 runs through the village Worth A large area of flood zone 3a/b Served only by minor roads lies adjacent to the north of the village Wraxall None A37 runs through the village Yarley A large area of flood zone 3a/b Served only by minor roads lies adjacent to the north of the village
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 21
8.0 Recent Development Levels Houses Number of Table G: Houses completed for each Settlement completed extant Total settlement between 1st April 2006 and 2006-2010 permissions 31st March 2010 and extant planning Baltonsborough 7 10 17 permissions Batcombe 2 3 5 Beckington 6 5 11 8.1 This data looks at the amount of Binegar/Gurney Slade 2 3 5 Bleadney & Henton 1 2 3 development settlements have had Butleigh 7 0 7 built between 2006 and 2010 and also Chantry 2 2 4 the number of houses with planning 1 Chewton Mendip 4 0 4 permissions . This is important data to Chilcompton 38 32 70 examine as it shows those settlements Coleford 27 7 34 that have had a lot of development or Coxley 10 13 23 proposed development over the last Cranmore 15 1 16 three years and those that have not. Croscombe 2 1 3 This will help in determining those Dinder 1 0 1 settlements that have more capacity Ditcheat 1 2 3 for development in the future. Doulting 0 3 3 Downhead 1 0 1 8.2 The total number of houses Draycott 12 7 19 completed, between 1st April 2006 Dulcote 1 3 4 and 31st March 2010, within the whole East Pennard 3 2 5 rural area of Mendip is 493. The total Easton 1 18 19 number of extant planning permissions Evercreech 19 17 36 as at 31st March 2010 is 364. Faulkland 3 2 5 Godney 1 3 4 Therefore the total number of houses Great Elm 0 2 2 completed and the total number of Holcombe 12 12 24 planning commitments within the rural Kilmersdon 2 2 4 area is 857. Lamyatt 0 4 4 Leigh on Mendip 9 0 9 8.3 The housing monitoring that is Litton 1 3 4 completed each year by Mendip Lottisham 2 0 2 divides the rural area into those Lydfords (East, West, 2 0 2 settlements that have development Fosse) limits as part of Local Plan Policy S1 Meare/Westhay 16 32 48 and the remaining settlements which Mells 5 0 5 are classified as Open Countryside. North Wootton 2 24 26 Therefore the data in the table only Norton St Philip 4 17 21 relates to villages that have Oakhill 16 4 20 development limits. For smaller Pilton 18 10 28 settlements, that do not have Priddy 5 6 11 development limits, the numbers are Rode 13 15 28 all aggregated to give a figure for Rodney Stoke 6 2 8 Stoke St Michael 8 0 8 Open Countryside. Ston Easton 1 1 2 Stratton on the Fosse 3 1 4 8.4 Some settlements have seen much Trudoxhill 5 1 6 higher levels of development and Upton Noble 0 3 3 planned development than others. Walton 10 7 17 Chilcompton has seen by far the most Wanstrow 4 3 7 development with 70 houses built or West Bradley 1 0 1 granted consent. Other settlements West Horrington 5 6 11 with over 25 built or planned houses West Pennard 4 1 5 are Rode, Wookey, Pilton, Evercreech, Westbury sub Mendip 6 2 8 Meare/Westhay, Coleford and Oakhill. Whatley 1 0 1 35 of the settlements have had less Witham Friary 1 0 1 than 10 homes built and planned for Wookey 22 7 29 over the past four years. Wookey Hole 2 12 14 Open Countryside 151 66 217 LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 22
8.5 One thing to take into consideration in planning future distribution of development across the rural area is the levels of development that have taken place in recent years and the capacity of settlements to accommodate new development without detrimental effects to their character. Clearly it would have to be questioned as to whether some of these settlements that have seen high levels recently should be apportioned large amounts of new development over the coming years.
9.0 Local Views and Opinions
9.1 Caution has been exercised in pulling this section together as the views of different sections of any given community will vary widely. Nevertheless, this section aims to pull together formal responses received from survey work, workshop feedback as well as published information such as Parish Plans to gain an insight into the issues which face individual communities. In the analysis section that follows, and in drawing conclusions, views set out here will be used to understand development aspirations and concerns.
Parish Plans 9.2 The following sections provide brief summaries of the aims of Parish Plans produced by Mendip villages
Coleford Parish Plan April 2009 To encourage the younger generations to stay in Coleford by: - Providing affordable housing - Encouraging employment in the village - Encourage self build of houses through ‘community self build’ Consider forming a Conservation group for the parish Assess all planning applications for new development with respect to infill issues and use of traditional building methods and styles where appropriate Promote local education facilities for all the parish Investigate a dial a ride service for the village Provision of improved facilities for the elderly and disabled Improve broadband and mobile communication by lobbying service providers Encourage people to use local businesses, develop schemes to encourage local spend and set up a business network Many in the community would like to see a newly built community hall Investigate parking and traffic calming measures Inclusion of facilities for the young people of the village
Cranmore Parish Development Plan 2002 – 2012 Parish Council do not believe there are any areas in Waterlip, Tansey, East Cranmore or Dean suitable for further residential development. Likewise in West Cranmore they believe all suitable spaces within the settlements have been used. Recent developments have been high value properties. This is seen as a good thing as it will bring in more expertise and spending power to the village to support the community. No ancillary buildings, nor structures of any nature to be permitted on the land at the back of the gardens of the dwellings on the south side of East Cranmore Lane; nor any on the land bordering upon the approved Manor Farm Development Area No further commercial, nor any residential development on greenfield sites within the Parish will be approved except for an already planned affordable housing scheme The loss of the village shop and Post Office has led the parish council to begin talks with the East Somerset Railway for a similar service to be offered there Extension of the East Somerset Railway to Shepton Mallet
Hemington, Hardington and Foxcote Parish Plan 2007 A large majority of parishioners would like to have greater restrictions on new development At present only Foxcote has a set development limits, a large majority of residents would like to see some development possible in other areas i.e. development limits in other areas LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 23
The large majority of the community would not like affordable housing to be built outside development limits A housing needs survey shows a demand for only three dwellings specifically in Faulkland Further linear development of Faulkland would be detrimental to community cohesion Improvements to the Faulkland playing field Improvements to village hall at Faulkland/alternative location
Leigh on Mendip Parish Plan 2006 Strong support for affordable housing for local people both renting and to buy. No definitive outcome for where new development should be located: given the choice of lower, middle and upper village the middle part of the village was only marginally more popular Strong feelings against extending the village and that there are enough houses. A question over where to build next Extension to the Memorial Hall Activities for young people – possible cyber café/skate park & BMX track Shop & PO facility Drop-in centre, particularly for the elderly
Lydford-on-Fosse Parish Plan 2006 Two thirds of residents felt that there should be no more houses built in the near future, and those who did favour more houses expressed a strong preference for low-cost or family homes. There was a definite opposition to the building of large houses, especially if they were not in keeping with those around them. Improvements to Parish Hall Increased police presence
Meare & Westhay Parish Plan 2004 The development of a Community Orchard – land which is set aside for a community orchard and which can be used for informal recreation A new village hall – a venue needed for events, service provision such as health checks and a place for villagers to get together (site wanted in Muddy Lane – see response to Rural Facilities Survey) Children’s play area – this was identified as a top priority
Norton St Philip Parish Plan February 2005 Low cost starter homes and homes for the elderly, including sheltered accommodation, highlighted as types of home most needed A housing needs survey report recommended the construction of 8-10 ‘affordable’ units. The report also highlighted that 21 households had a need to move at some time over the coming 5 years – 9 were elderly people looking to downsize and 12 with a present or expected need to move. Leisure facilities, notably an all-weather surface suitable for a range of activities for all ages A tea room/coffee shop/meeting room/small office/interview premises/improved doctor’s facility A new pre-school
Priddy Parish Plan 2004 Large, remote, dispersed parish occupying the greater part of the central limestone plateau of the Mendip Hills A number of areas of archaeological importance The roads in the parish are either unclassified or B class, therefore the village is relatively inaccessible Affordable housing is highlighted as a priority for the Parish Plan and an assessment of need is to be ascertained. A Parish Design Statement is included within the parish plan giving guidelines as to the local character of the parish and how new development and improvements to existing buildings can be in keeping with this. LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 24
Stoke St Michael Parish Plan 2005 Most respondents felt there was a shortage of housing, particularly affordable housing A preference was expressed that further development should involve reusing derelict and brownfield sites within the village development zone Improved health and social service facilities provision Discouragement of HGVs from driving through the village Dial a ride or car share transport schemes Cycle paths
Westbury-sub-Mendip Parish Plan May 2005 50% of respondents wanted no additional housing in the village If development was to take place residents thoughts are: - The majority support single dwellings only and were opposed to large groups of development - the conversion of barns and derelict buildings was supported - low cost housing was supported In terms of low cost housing the types wanted are: - one to two bed starter homes - three bed family homes - bungalows - sheltered housing for older people - A mix of rent/right to buy and shared equity homes supported
Views from Parish Councils on future development in their parishes. 9.3 One of the sections of the Rural Facilities Survey sent to each parish in 2008 was intended to discover what parishes felt about future development in their village(s). One question asked if the parish wished to see any future development in the village(s) of the parish. This was followed by a question asking if future development was wanted, what form would this ideally take? A third question asked whether the parish felt that there was a need for affordable housing with the village(s).
9.4 The results of these questions can be found in Table H below. Note that only those villages where the corresponding parish answered the questions as part of the survey have been included. Therefore some villages featured in other sections of this document will not be found here.
Table H : Indicative views from Parish Councils about the need for new development and its generic format Village New development Type of new development wanted wanted Y/N Alhampton None Batcombe Yes Affordable only Beckington Yes Affordable only Buckland Dinham Yes Limited open market housing in infill positions and affordable housing Butleigh Yes Open market and affordable (20-30 units) Chesterblade None Chewton Mendip Yes Limited affordable housing only Chilcompton Yes Affordable and very limited infilling Coleford Yes Affordable Coxley Yes Affordable Cranmore None Croscombe Yes Affordable Dean None Dinder None Ditcheat Yes Affordable Draycott Yes Affordable Dulcote None East Horrington Yes Affordable Easton Yes Affordable LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 25
Village New development Type of new development wanted wanted Y/N Evercreech Yes Open market and affordable Godney None Green Ore None Haybridge None Kilmersdon None Lamyatt None Litton None Lydford None Meare None Mells Yes Open market and affordable North Wootton Yes Affordable Nunney Yes Affordable Polsham None Pylle None Rode None Rodney Stoke Yes Affordable Rudge None Standerwick Yes Affordable Stoke St Michael Yes Open market and affordable Tytherington None Vobster None Walton Yes Open market and affordable West Horrington Yes Affordable Westbury sub Mendip Yes Affordable Westhay Yes Affordable Witham Friary Yes Open market and affordable Wookey Hole Yes Open market and affordable Worth Yes Affordable Yarley None
10.0 Analysis of data
10.1 Although the data that has been presented in this document encompasses a number of different topic areas the relevance of each of the data strands to the production of the Local Development Framework and the Core Strategy varies.
10.2 Settlement Size: analysis of the data reveals a broad three way split in the nature of villages.
At the very top end, Chilcompton, Coleford and Evercreech are distinctly larger villages than any others with populations in excess of 2,000 people. This scale of population is of sufficient critical mass to sustain a much broader range of community infrastructure.
At the other end of the spectrum it is broadly true to state that the 47 villages with a population of less than 250 have insufficient critical mass to sustain any form of commercially run local services. Exceptions do of course exist however these generally have a historical basis, a prominent highway location or an owner who excels at their trade and in turn draw people in. Public services are rare in such villages with, for example, schools at Upton Noble and Berkley being present to serve a wider community area than just the village itself.
Between these two extremes lie a large number of villages with populations between 250 and 1000 people where local services exist but are more marginal. In bigger villages like Oakhill, Meare and Stoke St Michael, viability is more stable, particularly where local employees make use of facilities. In smaller villages local services are more marginal and so influences like creeping population change (i.e. changing socio-economic profiles) and the loss of a local firm can and has tipped the balance. A number of other factors also come into play within this group – relative isolation will mean there is more support for a local services, likewise a well trafficked through route may attract enough passing trade to top up takings from the local community. LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 26
10.3 From a functional perspective size is therefore an important indicator in determining the level of activity within a community, and in turn its relative self containment. Smaller villages are generally less viable and so small scale development (aside from that required to sustain locally based employers) is unlikely to have any significant benefit to the community as a whole. At the other end of the spectrum, large villages can sustain a range of services and employment activity and so further growth can stimulate new or improved provision.
10.4 For villages lying between these two extremes there is no clear cut view. On the one hand, growth could be said to create more customers to support local services and stimulate new businesses, however evidence examined at a regional level disputes this by suggesting that the rural population, particularly migrants to an area, are more likely to rely on town based services and facilities, therefore having little positive impact for marginal local services.
10.5 Extent of services: Those settlements that scored 10 and over have been identified as having the best range of services. In order to achieve a score of ten settlements would have at least five of the nine services identified. Those settlements achieving a score of ten and over are:
Baltonsborough Ditcheat Nunney Beckington Draycott Oakhill Butleigh Evercreech Priddy Chewton Mendip Lydford (includes East Rode Chilcompton and West Lydford and Stoke St Michael Coleford Lydford on Fosse) Westbury sub Mendip Croscombe Mells
Only one settlement in the rural area of the district contains all nine services and that is Chilcompton.
10.6 In analysing the service and facilities data a second tier of settlement becomes apparent. These settlements have a score of between six and nine and therefore have at least three of the services and facilities outlined.
Binegar Holcombe Upton Noble Coxley (inc. Upper Kilmersdon Walton Coxley & Coxley Leigh on Mendip West Horrington Wick) Meare West Pennard Doulting Norton St Philip Westhay Draycott Pilton Wookey Gurney Slade Pylle
10.7 The final tier, including those settlements with a score of 5 or below features the remaining 59 settlements. This analysis shows that the majority of the settlements in the rural area of Mendip are not very well served in terms of facilities and services and therefore the residents of these settlements must rely on accessing facilities and services in better served nearby villages, Mendip’s market towns or towns outside the district.
10.8 Not all of these services however are as important to everyday life as each other. Through this analysis three particular services and facilities have been highlighted as being more important in enabling self containment of settlements.
A primary school, A shop that meets a range of daily needs A community meeting place – either a village hall or pub
10.9 These are considered to be the most important and most regularly used. If residents use the local school, do their daily top up shopping in the village shop and were able to access social events within the settlement this would indicate good potential for self containment and therefore cut down their need to travel to other settlements to obtain these facilities and services.
10.10 There are 17 settlements within the district that contain a school, shop and pub/village hall, these are: LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 27
Baltonsborough Croscombe Priddy Beckington Ditcheat Rode Butleigh Draycott Stoke St Michael Chewton Mendip Evercreech Westbury sub Mendip Chilcompton Mells Coleford Nunney
10.11 There are also two sets of villages that are in very close proximity to each other that between them also contain these three facilities. These are Binegar/Gurney Slade and Meare/Westhay.
10.12 Accessibility: Only nine of the 95 settlements examined scored a full four points in having a journey to work bus service and a service that returns to the settlement from a larger town/city after 9pm. These nine settlements therefore are the only ones where it would be possible to visit a larger town or city for leisure purposes in the evening and be able to return home by public transport. In all other settlements residents wishing to do this are reliant upon their cars.
10.13 A further 37 of the settlements scored three points from having a journey to work bus service. Therefore in total 46 settlements are served by a bus provision that would allow residents to access either a Mendip town or a town or city outside the district in order to work a 9am – 5pm job. This accounts for 48% of all the settlements analysed.
10.14 At the other end of the accessibility spectrum 27 settlements scored zero points from having no bus service at all. In these settlements there is therefore no other choice for residents than using a private car. The only exception to this is Mendip Community Transport dial a ride service which covers the whole of the Mendip area. Its purpose is to provide an alternative transport option for senior citizens, those with disabilities and those who are socially excluded.
10.15 The middle tier of 23 settlements has a level of provision in between those detailed above. Some have a daily bus service and some have a weekly service. Although this would allow residents some accessibility to other settlements in reality the level of benefits they provide for the majority of residents are limited.
10.16 Through analysis of this data those settlements that can be considered ‘accessible’ are those which have a journey to work bus service. This therefore includes the following 46 settlements:
Alhampton Draycott Pilton Baltonsborough Evercreech Prestleigh Beckington Faulkland Rode Binegar Great Elm South Horrington Bleadney & Henton Gurney Slade Stoke St Michael Buckland Dinham Haybridge Stratton on the Fosse Butleigh Holcombe Vobster Chantry Kilmersdon Walton Chewton Mendip Leigh on Mendip West Horrington Chilcompton Lydford (East, West & on West Pennard Coleford Fosse) Westbury-sub-Mendip Coxley (Upper & Coxley Meare Westhay Wick) Mells Wookey Croscombe Norton St Philip Wookey Hole Dinder Nunney Woolverton Ditcheat Oakhill Doulting Oldford
10.17 Employment & the rural economy: Although the data in this section is limited to ward level, and does not give specific job numbers for settlements, it is useful to see the levels of employment and economic activity within broader geographical areas. Two particular wards stand out
Mells, with a jobs to homes ratio of 235%. This can be explained by the number of quarries and ancillary companies that are operational in this area as well as a number of other employers. Set alongside a relatively sparse population this is therefore not surprising LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 28
St Cuthbert Out has a jobs to homes ratio of 160%. This ward contains Wookey Hole, where the cave attraction is a large employer, and Coxley which contains a relatively large number of businesses. More significantly however, this ward surrounds the city of Wells and a number of its key employers, notably Thales, fall within its area.
10.18 A further five wards have ratios of jobs to households of around 1:1. These are:
Beacon - containing settlements such as Stoke St Michael, Leigh on Mendip and Cranmore, this area also has a lot of employment in quarrying and supporting industries. Beckington & Rode – containing Commerce Park and Frome Market Chilcompton Creech which includes the village of Evercreech with its major employers Nordinton
10.19 Some wards have significantly low ratios of jobs to households. Coleford, Avalon, Pylcombe and Rodney & Priddy all have ratios of less than one job for every two households. Clearly these areas have distinctly less economic activity and employment than a number of others mentioned above.
10.20 In looking at these proportions against average travel to work distances and percentages of people who work from home there does not appear to be any distinct correlation. It may have been expected that in those wards with low job to household ratios there would be significantly longer average travel to work distances. This is only the case for the Rodney & Priddy ward and Avalon ward. These two wards have average travel to work distances of 20km which is 6km more than the district average and regional average of 14km. Other wards with higher than average travel to work distances are Beckington & Rode, Nordinton, Vale and Postlebury. With the exception of Postlebury these travel patterns could be explained by the locations of the wards being on the periphery of the district. Employment in larger towns outside the district such as Taunton, Yeovil and Bath could draw the residents of these wards.
10.21 There does seem to be a relatively significant proportion of people who work at or from home in a number of wards. Over a fifth of people of working age (16 – 74 years) in Avalon, Beckington & Rode, Knowle, Mells, Postlebury, Pylcombe, Rodney & Priddy, Wookey & St Cuthbert Out West and Vale work from home. This is a considerably higher figure than the average for the district, region and country.
Constraints: 10.22 Environmental constraints: The majority of settlements looked at have some degree of environmental constraints. There are 17 villages that do not have any environmental constraints. There are three main categories of environmental constraints: flooding i.e. surrounded by a large area flood zone 3a/b; landscape i.e. being within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and wildlife i.e. being within close proximity to an internationally designated site such as a Special Protection Area or Special Area of Conservation.
10.23 Those settlements that are severely constrained by flood zones are: Godney, Meare, Polsham, Sharpham and Westhay. Those settlements that are constrained by landscape issues are: Charterhouse, Chewton Mendip, Draycott, Easton, Green Ore, Haydon, Litton, Priddy, Rodney Stoke, West Horrington, Westbury sub Mendip and Wookey Hole. Settlements constrained by proximity to wildlife sites are: Charterhouse, Priddy, Rodney Stoke, Stoke St Michael, Westhay and Wookey Hole.
10.24 Transport infrastructure constraints: : 57 settlements are served only by minor roads, including a substantial percentage that are over 5km from a primary route. The remaining settlements have a primary route through them or adjacent to them.
10.25 Other infrastructure constraints: These are based purely on anecdotal evidence from consultation responses from parishes and as such information only exists for a very small number of settlements. Poor, slow or non- existent connections to broadband appear to be the biggest constraint within the rural area.
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 29
11.0 Conclusions
11.1 The scores from the extent of services section and the accessibility by public transport sections have been combined to give each settlement an overall sustainability score, shown in Table H. These are the two strongest indicators of self containment and will be used to determine which settlements are best equipped to accommodate future development. As set out in section 10.8 above it has been concluded that the most important services and facilities for everyday life are a primary school, a shop selling a range of daily needs and a community venue such as a pub/village hall.
Table H: Overall sustainability scores Village Extent of Accessibility score Overall score services score Alhampton 3 2 5 Baltonsborough * 12 3 15 Batcombe * 4 1 5 Beckington * 15 4 19 Berkley 4 1 5 Binegar * 6 3 9 Bleadney & Henton * 3 3 6 Buckland Dinham * 3 3 6 Butleigh * 10 3 13 Chantry * 3 3 6 Charterhouse 1 1 2 Chesterblade 1 0 1 Chewton Mendip * 10 4 14 Chilcompton * 17 3 20 Clapton 2 0 2 Coleford * 15 3 18 Coxley (incl. Coxley Wick & Upper Coxley) * 8 3 11 Cranmore * 5 2 7 Croscombe * 10 3 13 Dean 1 2 3 Dinder * 3 3 6 Ditcheat * 10 3 13 Doulting * 6 3 9 Downhead 0 0 0 Draycott * 14 4 18 Dulcote * 1 0 1 East Compton 0 0 0 East Horrington * 1 0 1 East Pennard * 3 1 4 Easton 4 0 4 Emborough 2 0 2 Evercreech * 16 3 19 Farleigh Hungerford 4 0 4 Faulkland * 6 3 9 Foxcote 1 0 1 Godney 5 1 6 Great Elm * 2 3 5 Green Ore 2 0 2 Gurney Slade * 8 3 11 Haybridge 0 4 4 Haydon 2 0 2 Hemington 4 0 4 Holcombe * 9 3 12 Hornblotton 3 0 3
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 30
Village Extent of Accessibility score Overall score services score Kilmersdon * 6 3 9 Lamyatt * 3 1 4 Laverton 1 0 1 Leigh on Mendip * 8 3 11 Litton * 1 1 2 Lottisham 0 0 0 Lullington 1 0 1 Lydford incl. West, East 10 3 13 & Lydford on Fosse * Meare * 9 3 12 Mells * 12 3 15 Milton Clevedon 1 0 1 North Wootton * 5 0 5 Norton St Philip * 10 4 14 Nunney * 15 3 18 Oakhill * 11 3 14 Oldford 2 4 6 Pilton * 9 3 12 Polsham 0 0 0 Prestleigh 3 3 6 Priddy * 11 1 12 Pylle 6 1 7 Rode * 12 4 16 Rodney Stoke * 5 0 5 Rudge 3 1 4 Sharpham 0 0 0 South Horrington 0 3 3 Standerwick 0 1 1 Stoke St Michael * 12 3 15 Ston Easton * 3 0 3 Stratton on the Fosse * 7 3 10 Tellisford 1 0 1 Trudoxhill * 5 1 6 Tytherington 3 1 4 Upton Noble * 8 1 9 Vobster 4 3 7 Walton * 8 3 11 Wanstrow 5 1 6 West Bradley 1 2 3 West Compton 0 0 0 West Horrington * 6 3 9 West Pennard * 8 3 11 Westbury-sub-Mendip * 10 4 14 Westhay 8 3 11 Whatley 3 2 5 Witham Friary * 5 2 7 Wookey * 6 3 9 Wookey Hole * 5 3 8 Woolverton 2 4 6 Worth 0 0 0 Wraxall 0 0 0 Yarley 0 0 0 * Those settlements included in the Mendip District Local Plan 2002
LOCAL PLAN TECHNICAL PAPER: RURAL SETTLEMENT ROLE AND FUNCTION STUDY 31
11.2 Those settlements that contain all three of these services and facilities, along with a journey to work bus service are felt to be the most appropriate locations for the majority of rural housing development. In these settlements basic everyday needs can be met and it is possible to work in a larger town or city without having to rely on using a private car. Therefore these settlements present the best options for self containment.
The identified settlements are: Baltonsborough Draycott Beckington Evercreech Butleigh Mells Chewton Mendip Nunney Chilcompton Rode Coleford Stoke St Michael Croscombe Westbury sub Mendip Ditcheat
There are four further settlements that are to be treated as two, due to their close proximity and would therefore qualify as suitable. These are:
Binegar/Gurney Slade Meare/Westhay
11.3 In undertaking this research and analysis it appears that there is another tier of settlements that, whilst do not fully qualify under the first tier, do have good bus service provision, including a journey to work service, and contain two of the three required services and facilities. The potential for self containment of these settlements, although not as high as those named above, is still much greater than the remaining rural settlements of the Mendip district. Those settlements that qualify under these criteria are:
Doulting Norton St Philip West Pennard Faulkland Oakhill Wookey Holcombe Pilton Wookey Hole Kilmersdon Walton Leigh on Mendip West Horrington Coxley (including Upper Coxley & Coxley Wick) Lydford (including East & West Lydford and Lydford on Fosse)
Changes in light of consultation 11.4 Due to the length of time involved in producing the Core Strategy there have inevitably been changes to the district’s rural communities. There have been a number of Parish Forums where parish councillors and clerks have attended to give their views on how the plan has been progressing. These forums have also provided an opportunity for them to update us on any changes that have occurred with regard to service provision. The following changes have been made to Table B: Extent of Services and Facilities as a result of this consultation:
Draycott: the village is now considered to contain a shop that meets basic daily food needs due to the opening of a farm shop. This has meant that Draycott can now be considered a primary village
Stratton on the Fosse: information was given that there is no longer a shop within the village and that the primary school is a fee paying private school. Therefore Stratton on the Fosse has been removed from the primary village list.
11.5 This study will need to continue to be updated in light of changing service and facility provision across the rural communities. Monitoring undertaken as part of the Core Strategy monitoring framework will allow this to be done in a formal manner.