Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper

Shaping Our Place 2026

Local Development Framework

July 2009

Contents

Consultation Requirements 1.0 Introduction ...... 4 2.0 Herefordshire in a regional context ...... 4 3.0 Local Context ...... 6 4.0 Why a revision to the Settlement Hierarchy is needed ...... 6 5.0 National and Regional Guidance ...... 6 6.0 Methodology...... 8 Baseline ...... 8 Existing Services and Facilities...... 9 Accessibility to public transport...... 10 Employment ...... 10 Travel to Work...... 11 Needs and opportunities ...... 12 Environmental Factors ...... 13 7.0 Results of analysis undertaken ...... 14 8.0 Categorising the settlements...... 14 Defining rural service centres...... 14 Defining Smaller Settlements...... 16 Development outside of RSC & Smaller Settlements ...... 17 9.0 Policy Direction...... 17 10.0 The direction of development ...... 17 11.0 Monitoring and review...... 18

Appendix 1 - Policy H4 & H6 details Appendix 2 - National Policy Appendix 3 - Review of supporting documents Appendix 4 - PPS1 – Broad sustainability Indicators Appendix 5 - Summary Matrix Appendix 6 - Needs Matrix Appendix 7 - Methodology / Scoring System Appendix 8 - Identified needs and scoring system Appendix 9 - Parish Plan needs table Appendix 10 - Map of Broadband Availability Speeds Appendix 11 - Map of Environmental Constraints Appendix 12 - Accession map – Public Transport Appendix 13 - Accession map – 5km Buffer Zones Appendix 14 - Tier 2 Options - Settlement identification

Figure 1 – Key Spatial Diagram Figure 2 – Number of dwellings within settlements in the County Figure 3 – Rural / Urban Split and distances travelled to work Figure 4 – Percentage of people using different modes of transport to work Figure 5 – Levels of Home working in rural and urban parts of the West Midlands

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 1 July 2009 Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 2 July 2009 Consultation Requirements

Herefordshire Council has produced this draft options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper to support the preparation of the Local Development Framework.

This Paper reviews the hierarchy that was used for the Unitary Development Plan and updates it to take into account recent guidance, current research and up to date survey information. It introduces the concept of Rural Service Centres and suggests options for how a settlement hierarchy could be implemented in Herefordshire.

We would welcome your views on this draft document. Please respond using the questions below as a guide. The period for consultation is 6 July to 28 August 2009. You can forward comments either by post addressed to Gemma Dyke at Forward Planning, Herefordshire Council, PO Box 4, Plough lane, Hereford, HR4 0XH or by e- mail to [email protected].

Consultation Questions

1 / Do you feel that the methodology is correct for determining the Settlement Hierarchy? If no, what elements do you feel need to be changed or are missing? (Page 7)

2/ What else do you feel is needed to help the Rural Service Centres be as sustainable as possible? (Page 9)

3/ Is there sufficient capacity in or around the settlements classified as Rural Service Centres to enable them to develop in an appropriate manner? Please refer to a specific settlement if necessary. (Page 14)

4/ Which option for the smaller settlements do you consider is the most appropriate for Herefordshire? (Page 16)

5/ Are there any other realistic options for categorising the settlements that we have not considered? (Page 16)

6/ Is there sufficient flexibility in the suggested Settlement Hierarchy to best meet housing needs of the County’s rural areas? (Page 17)

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 3 July 2009 1.0 Introduction

1.1 This Rural Settlement Hierarchy paper has been prepared as part of the evidence base of the Local Development Framework (LDF) to help inform the emerging Core Strategy that will guide and shape the County until 2026. This paper does not assess or allocate individual sites for development.

1.2 The Developing Options consultation paper (June 2008) discussed the potential option of defining “Rural Service Centres” (RSC). The 35% of 798 respondents felt that growth within Herefordshire should be within Hereford, market towns and a limited number of sustainable rural settlements with the rest of the rural areas limited to affordable housing to meet local need. For Question 35 of the Developing Options paper, more than two thirds of respondents felt that particular settlements outside of the market towns should be identified as local service centres to help to promote and protect facilities and services.

1.3 This paper sets out the criteria used to identify the settlements that act as “Rural Service Centres” in Herefordshire, and which could accommodate modest but balanced growth, and those settlements where more limited development to meet local needs may be appropriate. Current Government guidance emphasises that planning policies should facilitate and promote sustainable patterns of development for communities in rural areas. Local planning authorities should be aware of the circumstances, needs and priorities of the rural communities and businesses in their area, and of the interdependence between urban and rural areas.

1.4 Rural Service Centres are not defined in Government guidance, however for the purposes of this assessment, they are considered as settlements that have a wide enough range of services to fulfil the day-to-day needs of local residents, surrounding settlements and rural areas. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment due for completion later this year will be able to inform the available capacity of each of the RSCs and will be set out in the forthcoming in the Market Towns and Rural Areas Development Plan Document.

1.5 Appendices include the detailed background information used for the methodology including accession modelling, parish council questionnaire results and a ‘facilities and needs’ matrix formulated from various sources of information such as site surveys, parish plans, education surplus places, housing needs studies etc.

2.0 Herefordshire in a regional context

2.1 Herefordshire is in the West Midlands region of England, but borders to the east of Wales. The map below is the Key Diagram from the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which illustrates the major functional relationships between Herefordshire and the surrounding West Midlands region.

2.2 As can be seen in the Figure 1 below, Hereford is defined as a ‘Sub-regional Focus for development beyond Major Urban Area’ and the majority of Herefordshire is part of a Rural Regeneration Zone (RR2). The submitted Phase 2 revisions of the RSS now refer to Hereford as a ‘Settlement of Significant Development’.

2.3 The County’s key linkages are both by rail and road, these being the M50, A38 and A49 and the Birmingham to Cardiff railway line. Another key linkage for this south- west area of the West Midlands region are possible cross boundary development

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 4 July 2009 pressures associated with future growth within the Gloucester / Cheltenham Sub region.

Figure 1 – Key Spatial Diagram – West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy January 2008

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 5 July 2009 3.0 Local Context

3.1 Herefordshire’s physical form and landscape has been shaped by; the geology, the resultant soil types and the vegetation, they support. The ‘footprint’ of the County essentially comprises a combination of high hill ranges round much of the perimeter, pierced by the principal rivers, together with the lower-lying plains in the centre. The main river crossing points have provided a natural focus for the development of settlements. Within that basic pattern, an exceptionally diverse landscape and rich biodiversity have evolved.

3.2 Herefordshire’s population is 178,400 (2005, mid year estimate), which is relatively low for a large County covering an area of 217,973 hectares. Herefordshire has one of the five lowest county populations in England, as of 2005. Hereford, with about 54,842 people, sits in the centre, with the highest population density of more than 100 persons per hectare; this density decreases to 0.06 persons per hectare in some of the more rural locations.

3.3 The satellite market towns of Ledbury, Ross-on-Wye, Leominster, Bromyard and Kington, are distributed with medieval regularity, the only gap in the pattern is at Ewyas Harold, which, has never developed beyond village size. Together the market towns contain a population of around 36,800. In total, approx 51% live in Hereford City and the Market Towns, leaving 49% of the population living in nucleated settlements or smaller settlements, farms and other isolated properties that are characteristic of much of Herefordshire.

3.4 In Herefordshire, there are in excess of 200 small settlements, many of these may never be considered “sustainable” in terms of meeting day-to-day needs of the local population due to the lack of services and facilities. Small quantities of development will not guarantee the retention of these services or the introduction of new services into the settlement. Rather, policies in the Core Strategy to promote local business developments and improvements to transport accessibility can help the sustainability of these places. However, in settlements where a level of basic services do exist, small- scale developments can add to the vitality and be a means by which affordable housing to meet local housing needs can be brought forward.

4.0 Why a revision to the Settlement Hierarchy is needed

4.1 Since the UDP Settlement Hierarchy was originally prepared in 2002, there have been:

 a number of new national studies;  developments at regional level; and  changes in service provision.

4.2 All of the above must be taken into consideration in preparing the Council’s new development plan – the Core Strategy, unlike the UDP. This review of the Rural Settlement Hierarchy also takes into account the “needs” of different settlements, accessibility modelling and other physical constraints. For reference, the existing UDP hierarchy is reproduced in Appendix 1.

5.0 National and regional guidance

5.1 There are clear policy drivers from the national and regional level for development to be focused in existing centres. Vitality, viability, social inclusion and public transport should be supported through the development process. Government planning policy

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 6 July 2009 and guidance in relation to settlement strategies is contained within a number of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). The most relevant are PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS3 (Housing), draft PPS4 (Planning for prosperous economies), PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres), PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and PPG13 (Transport). An analysis of the relevant sections within these documents is contained in Appendix 2.

5.2 The key principles of these documents to be considered when developing the Rural Settlement Hierarchy are:

 Most new development should be directed to existing towns and cities, to help maximise accessibility to employment and services by walking, cycling and public transport (e.g. PPS1 para 27(vi), PPS3 para 36-39, PPS4 para EC7.5, PPG13 para 6, and PPS7 para 1);

 In rural areas, development should be focused on settlements that can act as service centres for surrounding areas (e.g. PPS3 para 36-39, PPS4 para EC9.2, PPS7 para 3, and PPG13 para 6);

 With regard to housing, the focus for significant growth should be market towns or local service centres, well served by public transport and other facilities, with development in settlements and other small rural communities only where needed to contribute to their sustainability (PPS3 para 33-39). Therefore only limited growth should be expected through the expansion of settlements.

5.3 The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2, Preferred Option, December 2007 covers the same principles highlighted in national policy. An analysis of the relevant sections of the RSS Phase 2 can be found in Appendix 2. The key points are as follows:

 New development should primarily meet locally generated needs, at a level to support balanced, sustainable communities (para 3.9);  To ensure balanced transport networks help reduce social exclusion and improve access to services and opportunities (para 3.9);  Improving the range and quality of services available to rural communities (Policy RR4 part A)

5.4 Phase 3 of the RSS covers Rural Services, and the SQW report, detailed in Appendix 3, was undertaken to support this topic area.

5.5 As well as government guidance at both national and regional level, there have been many other documents that have helped to inform and influence this background paper, e.g. The Taylor Review. An analysis of these supporting documents can be found in Appendix 3.

5.6 A table that shows the relationship between the sustainability objectives of PPS1, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands and this Rural Settlement Hierarchy along with expected outcomes can be found in Appendix 4. This sustainability table helps to define the parameters of this report in ensuring that the hierarchy developed for the LDF will be the most sustainable option available. It also helps to identify the sustainability options at a regional level and link these to a more local level. The indicators within the table will help to form a basis for monitoring the hierarchy in the future.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 7 July 2009 6.0 Methodology

6.1 The Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper needs to reflect the current and emerging overall national, regional and local policy context, the findings of other documents referred to in Appendix 3, as well as current research, and have particular regard to:

 The emerging Spatial Strategy of the Core Strategy which endorses a dispersed approach to development in the Rural Areas taking into account social, economic and environmental considerations in line with the County’s status as a Rural Regeneration Zone.  The settlements which act as “Rural Service Centres” for their surrounding area, and could potentially offer a suitable location for accommodating some of the future growth requirements for Herefordshire;

 The settlements where there is an identified housing development need, for example, for affordable housing or a certain type of housing, which would support business or service provision;

 The identification of the relationships between settlements and whether there are ‘groups’ or ‘hubs’ of settlements which are interlinked in terms of social networks and share employment/services;

6.2 In order to assess their current sustainability in terms of economic and social factors each settlement has been assessed in terms of:

 The number of existing facilities, that are available within 800 metres of the settlement, as recorded in January 2009;  Access to public transport and employment opportunities;  Travel to work patterns; and  The ‘needs’ that have been identified for the settlements.

6.3 To ensure the sustainability of a settlement in terms of environmental factors, the settlement will be assessed in terms of its ability to accommodate new development whilst taking into consideration Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Flood Zone 3 and the character of the area.

Baseline

6.4 There are many settlements in the County – from the ‘Settlement of Significant Development’ of Hereford, to the five market towns, through to the large villages and many small local hamlets. In the absence of a formal definition at the smaller end of the scale, it is not possible to give an exact number of “settlements” in Herefordshire. For the purposes of this analysis, all settlements have been considered which either:

(a) Were included in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (March 2007), as designated market towns, main villages or smaller settlements; and (b) Were included as part of the facilities and services parish questionnaire, January 2009, detailed within section 8 of this report.

6.5 All other settlements of less than 20 dwellings have been excluded from the study, by virtue of being the smallest places with the lowest populations, and for the strategic purposes of the Core Strategy, are indistinguishable from open countryside. See Appendix 5.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 8 July 2009

6.6 Figure 2 below illustrates the number of settlements that have been surveyed, within the County by size. Clearly there are a great number of settlements of the smallest size.

Figure 2 – Number of dwellings within settlements in the County (Source: Herefordshire Council)

Existing Services and Facilities

6.7 For the purposes of analysing the services and facilities data, the settlements that had under 20 dwellings (approximate population of 50) are deemed to be small hamlets, with little or no services / facilities available and would therefore be unable to support development. These were not analysed further and considered to be housing within open countryside.

6.8 The remaining settlements were assessed for the current level of services and facilities provided (see Appendix 5). The services and facilities were given a weighted score depending on their importance to day-to-day needs of the local population. This was influenced by:

 Consultation with parish councils on what they felt were the most important services to be able to access within their parish settlements;  Identified best practice;  Government and regional guidance and other reports, including the Taylor Review, defining the most important services and facilities.

6.9 A score of 3 points was given to the key services and facilities meeting day-to-day needs these included:

 Convenience store;  Public house;  Post office;

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 9 July 2009  Village/Community hall;  Primary school;  Cash point;  Public transport availability with peak hour accessibility to Hereford or a market town; and  Railway station,

6.10 Other services and facilities were given a score of 1 point each, these included;

 Secondary schools;  Open space provision/children’s play area;  Library;  Mobile post office  Infant/Nursery school;  Place of worship;  GP/Pharmacy;  Non-convenience shop (A1);  Take-away;  Financial & Professional Services (A2) and Restaurants & Cafes (A3);  NHS dentist;  Petrol station;  Community transport;  Local hospital;  Bank; and  Village warden

6.11 All of the services and facilities recorded needed to be within an approximate area of 800 metres of the main settlement core, and were open and running as of March 2009, so although a settlement may have an obvious facility, (i.e. a church) it may not have been recorded within the matrix if it was no longer in use. It should also be noted that if there were multiple key services, e.g. Pubs, then only one was scored three points and the others were given one point each.

Accessibility to public transport

6.12 Further to the above, accessibility by public transport to the nearest market town was also scored. It should be noted that on the borders of the County the closest market town where employment sites are located, might be outside of Herefordshire, for example, Hay-on-Wye and Ludlow. The accessibility to settlements was calculated using a software system called Accession. The settlements were awarded points according to the level of availability of the bus or train service and the time taken. Further details on the scoring can be found in Appendix 7.

Employment

6.13 Details on employment sites around the County were taken from the Employment Land Review (2009), which has been undertaken as part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy. Therefore only the employment sites that have been identified as part of this study have been assessed, and included in the matrix. This is due to the varying nature of what is defined as an employment site. Details of the scoring can be found in Appendix 7.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 10 July 2009 Travel to work

6.14 Studies have shown that in rural areas, journeys to work are longer than for most services and the range of destinations more dispersed. In addition, a higher proportion of home working takes place within areas more remote from towns. This is the case for Herefordshire. See figure 3.

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Works at/ Less than 2km to 5km to 10km to 20km to 30km to 40km to 60km and Other from 2km less than less than less than less than less than less than over home 5km 10km 20km 30km 40km 60km

Urban Rural Tow n Rural Village Rural Dispersed

Figure 3 – Rural/Urban split and distances travelled to work. (Source: State of Herefordshire Report 2008, details of the Rural and Urban classification can be found on page 172)

6.15 As can be seen from figure 4, although the rural areas shows high levels of home working, 28% of residents who live in a rural dispersed location and 18% of residents in rural villages work from home. Residents in the rural areas also generally travel more outside of the immediate area for employment than their town based counterparts, this is shown above by the rural villages and rural dispersed having higher levels of travelling above 5km than urban or rural town, and 25% of those living in urban areas have travel to work distances of between 2-5km. The travel to work information suggests that consideration should be given to the issue of home working and live/work units when allocating housing to the rural areas. This is particularly important in the villages that are more remote and have more restricted local employment opportunities to encourage sustainability with regard to employment provision.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 11 July 2009 Other

On foot

Bicycle

Taxi or minicab

Passenger in a Car or Van Driving a Car or Van Motor cycle, scooter or moped Bus, minibus, coach

Train

Work mainly at or from Home

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Urban Rural Town Rural Village Rural Dispersed

Figure 4 -% of people using different methods of transport to work according to their rural/urban location

6.16 Travel to work patterns were scored in the matrix as to the percentage of people who both lived and worked within the same rural ward, as taken from the Census 2001. Details of scoring can be found in Appendix 7.

Needs and opportunities

6.17 In addition to identifying what services and facilities already exist within the settlements, an essential part of assessing the growth potential of the County’s settlements is to identify their individual needs, this can often be related to the opportunities that development can bring. The Taylor Review recognises that this is of great importance for the future of all settlements. A needs matrix can be found in Appendix 6. These needs were identified through a number of ways, including;

 A full review of available parish plans to identify any community facility needs. Health needs were also identified through the parish plans and the parish questionnaires - 1 point per need was allocated.

 Surplus School Places – both primary and secondary, were identified through a School Places Report from Children’s Services. This is an indicator of where new housing could support existing schools. 1 point was given if there was a surplus of places at the settlement school.

 Affordable housing needs were identified through both housing studies and local housing needs surveys. The higher the need the more points given to recognise this priority. (Details of scoring can be found in Appendix 8)

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 12 July 2009  Broadband Access – Studies have shown that a minimum requirement for businesses is to have a broadband speed of 2Mb but ideally they should be 8Mb. Herefordshire is limited to 0.5Mb due to existing infrastructure. Therefore a point has been allocated for all settlements surveyed as an acknowledgement of the need for improvements to Broadband provision. See Appendix 10.

6.18 It should be noted that the list of needs identified in the process of writing this paper is by no means exhaustive. It is granted that these needs may change over time particularly given the length of the plan period (to 2026). In addition, it is recognised by many Parish Councils that many of these needs represent a ‘wish list’ and that it may be very difficult to meet them all, for instance due to overriding constraints or because development of an appropriate scale may not realistically provide the additional demand necessary to improve the level of services e.g. public transport provision. However, the ‘needs’ identified have been verified against issues set out in parish plans where possible. They have been included to take on board aspects of future sustainability as highlighted by the Taylor Review.

Environmental Factors

6.19 When assessing the growth potential of the County’s settlements, it is important to consider potential constraints that could limit development. Within Herefordshire there are two landscape areas of national importance, the Wye Valley and the Malvern Hills AONBs, both are situated in the eastern part of the County. Settlements that are wholly within the AONB are constrained by this designation and the impact of any new peripheral residential development would need to be carefully considered and based upon identified local need and be of small-scale, as detailed within the AONB’s Management Plans. For settlements that are partly constrained by the AONB designation, consideration should be given to whether suitable sites are available outside this designation and if unavailable, growth should be based upon locally identified needs. The AONB area can be seen on the Environmental Constraints map in Appendix 11.

6.20 A number of areas within Herefordshire are also covered by Flood Zone 3, as defined by Environment Agency. It is necessary to ensure that new development is not at direct risk from flooding, and that development in flood risk areas or elsewhere in catchments does not create or exacerbate flood risk to other land, therefore development within land at risk of flooding should generally be avoided. The Environment Agency Flood Zones 2 and 3 can be seen on the Environmental Constraints map in Appendix 11.

6.21 There are other designations that may place constraints on a settlement’s potential for growth. These include:  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);  Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SINC);  Local Nature Reserves;  Scheduled Ancient Monuments;  Ancient Woodland.

Although these sites are of value and importance, they only generally affect a few potential sites within or adjoining a settlement, rather than the whole settlement. Therefore such constraints will be identified on a site-by-site basis through the more detailed Market Towns and Rural Areas Plan at a later stage. In this respect, these other designations have not been taken into account for the purposes of this assessment.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 13 July 2009

6.22 In addition to these designations, the findings of Herefordshire’s Characterisation Assessment, due to be completed by the end of 2009, and the impact on the County’s built heritage will also need to be taken into account in later stages of the development of the Rural Settlement Hierarchy, which will be undertaken as part of the Market Towns and Rural Areas Plan.

7.0 Results of analysis undertaken

7.1 The services and facilities matrix was originally informed through site surveying as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), officers identified the different services and facilities that were available within each settlement reviewed.

7.2 As discussed earlier in this report, questionnaires were sent out to all Parish Councils in January 2009, requesting replies to be returned by March 2009. 95 Parish Councils replied to the questionnaire, which allowed the services and facilities matrix to be updated accordingly, and to ensure all settlements with services were included and detailed. The summary matrix can be found in Appendix 5. This shows a distinct group of settlements above the 30 points mark which have been identified as “Rural Service Centres”.

8.0 Categorising the settlements

Defining Rural Service Centres and Hubs

8.1 Government guidance does not define “Rural Service Centres” so, for the purposes of this report, they are defined as settlements that have a wide enough range of services to fulfill the day-to day needs of local residents, surrounding villages and rural areas. The final selection has been based on the highest scoring settlements and not on population figures as the strategy is aimed at supporting the function of rural settlements.

8.1 The following list is some of Herefordshire Council’s key priorities (taken from the Local Area Agreement) for the period 2008-2011:

 Improve the provision of access to public transport and encourage alternatives to car use;  Increase the availability of appropriate and affordable housing;  Encourage higher skilled and better paid jobs in Herefordshire;  Improve access to and availability of local services and facilities;  Lead a local contribution to climate change reduction, by reducing the need to travel;  Protect, restore and enhance the built, historical and natural environment; and  Build sustainability into the design and planning processes of development, land management, transport and communities.

8.3 The above list highlights what the settlement hierarchy can help to achieve through the direction of development, including open market housing, affordable housing, employment and community services. It is considered that this can be best achieved by supporting those settlements that already have a good level of services and good public transport provision (RSC/Hubs), and those smaller settlements that have potential for improvements either through bringing forward employment, community services, improved transport provision or environmental enhancements. To ensure

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 14 July 2009 climate change priorities, the latter need to have good access to larger settlements and/or market towns and have basic services to meet day to day needs.

8.4 Based on the collation of evidence (set out in section 6), a list has been drawn up of the highest scoring settlements. Within this list the Rural Service Centres – Tier 1, (greater than 30 points) potential settlements that could accommodate growth and development at a level below the market towns, have been identified. There are considered to be no other options for this tier, as to define RSCs there are certain needs which must be fulfilled to meet the key priorities identified above. The criteria for a Rural Service Centre includes;

 An employment site (as identified in the Employment Land Study);or  Be within 5km of an employment site; and  Have good public transport accessibility, at peak times to a local market town or Hereford City; and  Five out of six of the key services identified in paragraph 6.9.

8.5 From the criteria the following list of Rural Service Centres have been determined:

Colwall Marden Credenhill Orleton Eardisley Peterchurch Ewyas Harold Shobdon Kingsland Wellington Kingstone Weobley Leintwardine Withington Madley

8.6 From the matrix there are four settlements that show up within the high scoring settlements, yet have not been classified as a RSC, because they do not meet the criteria set out in 8.4, they are:

 Cradley – There is a lack of public transport provision at peak times to and from either a market town, or Hereford city or Worcester City. Cradley is also significantly constrained by virtue of being located within the Malvern Hills AONB.

 Fownhope – There is not an employment site identified within the settlement and there are no other identified RCSs within 5km that it could share one with. Fownhope is also significantly constrained by virtue of being located within the Wye Valley AONB and flooding issues.

 Lea –There are only five key services within the settlement and there are no other identified RSCs within 5km that it could share services with.

 Pembridge – There are only four key services within this settlement, and there are no other identified RCS’s within 5km that it could share services with.

8.7 For the purposes of this study, the functional relationship between settlements is recognised through “hubs”. This is based on the criterion that a settlement can be deemed to share certain key services with another settlement or a main town if it is within a 5km (approximately 3 miles) distance threshold, which represents a 5-minute drive at 40mph, deemed a safe speed for most rural roads. If a settlement does not provide a service or facility and a settlement within its 5km threshold does, then the settlement may still qualify as a service centre or hub if it shares sufficient key services.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 15 July 2009 The suggested ‘distance threshold’ is based on pragmatic assumptions regarding service use in rural areas which recognises that the car is by far the most widely used method of travel for accessing services outside of the immediate community. The 5km threshold is intended to be a broad and flexible guide to the distance which people in general will be willing to travel by car to access more locally available services, if they represent a preferable alternative to travelling further afield. The Taylor Review identified this issue and that market towns and rural settlements are dependent upon each other for labour, housing, employment and services.

8.8 The criteria for a Hub include:

 Must be within 5km of a RSC; and  Five out of six of the key services; and  Have good public transport accessibility.

8.9 From this criteria, the following settlements have been identified as Hubs:

Clehonger (Hub with Kingstone) Moreton-on-Lugg (Hub with Wellington)

Defining Smaller Settlements

8.10 The settlements considered for this second tier have a limited level of growth potential, but development here may facilitate the support of rural services in line with Government guidance and may help to meet the needs identified for each settlement. At this time, we are uncertain as to whether a second tier in the hierarchy will be needed, however to remain flexible to the forthcoming revised RSS figures, three potential options are being considered.

Option 1

8.11 Only have the Rural Service Centres as defined settlements for growth, with no smaller settlements, and affordable housing through the use of housing allocations and/or exception site development and other categories of development, as defined in paragraph 8.15, elsewhere.

Option 2

8.12 This option identifies smaller settlements as the villages within 5km of a RSC or market town regardless of their level of services and facilities. (See Appendix 13) This option would help to reduce the need to travel, maintains accessibility to services and would help towards regenerating Rural Service Centres. With this option we are accepting that there will be car use within rural areas, but this option helps to minimise it and also allows for walking and cycling to RSCs due to their close proximity. Developer contributions may help (within the constraints of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations) towards social, economic or environmental improvements to the local area, which will support rural renaissance. A list of settlements within this option 2 can be found in Appendix 14.

Option 3

8.13 This option identifies smaller settlements as those with good public transport and four or more key services (See Appendices 5 &12). This option will help to retain existing services in smaller settlements regardless of their relationship to a RSC. Again, developer contributions will help towards social, economic or environmental

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 16 July 2009 improvements to the local area, which will support rural renaissance. A list of settlements within this option 3 can be found in Appendix 14.

Option 4

8.14 This option identifies smaller settlements that have at least five key services, and regardless of whether there is peak time public transport availability. This option provides the opportunity for growth in areas where improvements to the public transport system could be made. A list of settlements within this option 4 can be found in Appendix 14.

Development outside of RSC and Smaller Settlements

8.15 Outside of defined settlements residential development will be limited to that which meets an agricultural, forestry or other farm diversification requirement, or accompanies the establishment or growth of a rural enterprise. It could also be the replacement of an existing dwelling or the conversion of an existing rural building. Affordable exception sites will also be permissible as long as the scheme contributes to meet a proven genuine and quantifiable local need as ascertained from an up-to-date local affordable housing needs survey. Affordable housing sites may be allocated through the Market Towns & Rural Areas Plan.

9.0 Policy Direction

9.1 In accordance with PPS7, where it identifies a need to support small-scale development in settlements that have poor services or facilities, the Core Strategy will have a policy that remains flexible for development outside the hierarchy. The Taylor report highlighted that ‘rigid hierarchies’ should be avoided and that sustainability is more of a ‘process’ than a state. Therefore, to provide more flexibility It is suggested that an additional criteria-based policy is included to enable appropriate development in settlements which have a reasonable level of services and facilities but which fall outside of the defined settlement hierarchy. In such instances the development could be permitted where it brings with it clear benefit to the sustainability of the settlement by maintaining and improving its key services and/or facilities. In some cases this policy could also allow for greater levels of development within RSCs or Smaller Settlements if additional service provision is provided.

10.0 The Direction of Development

10.1 This report will assist in directing development to those areas that are considered to be the most ‘sustainable’ in terms of all the sustainability indicators including the level of community services and facilities they may have and / or need, accessibility to higher order centres, i.e. employment opportunities and ability to accommodate new development whilst limiting environmental impact.

10.2 This approach is in accordance within PPS3 and PPS7, which states that development should be directed to developed areas and that in the countryside new development should be sensitively related to existing settlement patterns. Larger built-up areas and settlements are therefore likely to have greater opportunities than smaller settlements of providing for new sustainable development without harming their character or setting.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 17 July 2009 10.3 The amount of development directed to individual settlements identified in the hierarchy will be established through the forthcoming Market Towns and Rural Areas Plan.

11.0 Monitoring and Reviewing the Rural Settlement Hierarchy

11.1 The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) currently monitors, for the current UDP, the number and percentage of new dwellings completed within built-up areas. The monitoring of this indicator will continue but will be in accordance with the LDF rather than the UDP. This will ensure that the vast majority of new dwellings and other forms of development are being located within the most sustainable locations in accordance with this report and the broad spatial location for development adopted within the Core Strategy.

11.2 The effects of the policies in the Core Strategy will be monitored through the AMR and all supporting evidence will be re-examined, including this Rural Settlement Hierarchy paper, at appropriate future reviews. Appendix 4 details the PPS1 broad sustainability indicators and also gives Indicators for the settlement hierarchy to be monitored by.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 18 July 2009 Appendix 1 – Main Villages and Smaller Settlements as per UDP

The largest rural settlements that have existing public transport links to urban centres, a good range of existing facilities/services and/or employment opportunities are identified as locations where rural development is directed. These settlements are termed ‘main settlements’ within the UDP and have a defined settlement boundary.

In respect of the wider rural areas the UDP also identifies a number of ‘smaller settlements’. These settlements are not as large and do not have the same range of public transport or local facilities as main settlements, but do provide some facilities and/or services for the local area. The UDP does not define settlement boundaries for smaller settlements and development within them is limited to infill development. Outside the main settlements and smaller settlements in the wider countryside, residential development is strictly controlled.

Main Villages (H4) Smaller Settlements (H6) Almeley Little Dewchurch Ashperton Pencombe Bartestree Lugwardine Bishopstone Peterstow The Moor, Bodenham Luston Brampton Bryan Pontrilas Bosbury Lyonshall Bredenbury Pontshill Brimfield Madley Bredwardine Preston on Wye Burghill Marden Burley Gate Richards Castle Canon Pyon Moreton-on-Lugg Dorstone Stoke Lacy/ Stoke Cross Clehonger Much Dewchurch Fromes Hill Stoke Prior Colwall Orelton Garway Stretton Sugwas Cradley Pembridge Gorsley Swainshill Credenhill Peterchurch Hampton Bishop Upton Bishop Cusop Shobdon Holme Lacy Walford Dilwyn Staunton-on-Wye Hope Under Dinmore Winforton Eardisland Sutton St Nicholas Kimbolton Woolhope Eardisley Tarrington Kings Caple Yarpole Ewyas Harold Walford (Coughton) Kingsthorne Fownhope Wellington Lingen Goodrich Weobley Llangrove Kingsland Weston under Penyard Longtown Kingstone Withington Monkland Lea Whitbourne Mordiford Leintwardine Whitchurch Much Birch Wigmore Much Marcle

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 2 - National and Regional Policy Background to the Review of Settlement Hierarchy

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Delivering Sustainable Development

This sets out the broad principles for sustainable development, and in terms of a settlement strategy, key points are under paragraph 27 (vi) and (vii):

 “Focus developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail, leisure and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and more sustainable patterns of development.”

 “Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges.”

Planning Policy statement 3 (PPS3) – Housing

This outlines the key principles for housing delivery, and of particular relevance are paragraphs 30, 31, 36 and 38:

 “LPA’s should make sufficient land available either within or adjoining market towns or villages, for both affordable and market housing, in order to sustain rural communities. In determining the approach to planning for housing and affordable housing in rural communities, LPA’s should have regard to the relevant sub-regional housing market and land availability assessments, the relevant RSS, regional housing strategy and local housing strategy.”

 “The focus for significant development should be market towns or local service centres that are well served by public transport and other facilities. Development may be provided for in villages and other small rural communities where needed to contribute to their sustainability.”

 “The Government’s policy is to ensure that housing is developed in suitable locations which offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure.”

 “The need to provide housing in rural areas, not only in market towns and local service centres but also in villages in order to enhance or maintain their sustainability. This should include, particularly in small rural settlements, considering the relationship between settlements so as to ensure that growth is distributed in a way that supports informal social support networks, assists people to live near their work and benefit from key services, minimise environmental impact and, where possible, encourage environmental benefits.”

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) – Planning for Town centres

Chapter 2, Page 7 requires Local Planning Authorities to:

 “define a network and a hierarchy of centres each performing their appropriate role to meet the needs of their catchments.”

Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

 Paragraph 1 (iii):

- “Most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips should be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.” - “Decisions on the location of other developments in rural areas should, where possible, give people the greatest opportunity to access them by public transport, walking, cycling, consistent with achieving the primary purpose of the development.”

 Paragraph 1 (iv):

- “New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.”

 Paragraphs 3 and 4:

- “Away from larger urban areas, planning authorities should focus most new developments in or near to local service centres where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together. This should help to ensure these facilities are served by public transport and provide improved opportunities for access by walking and cycling. These centres (which might be a country town, a single large village or a group of villages) should be identified in the development plan as the preferred location for such development.”

- “planning authorities should set out in LDDs their policies for allowing some limited development in, or next to, rural settlements that are not designated as local service centres, in order to meet local business and community needs and to maintain the vitality of these communities. In particular, authorities should be supportive of small scale development of this nature where it provides the most sustainable option in villages that are remote from, and have poor public transport links with, service centres.”

Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) – Transport

 Paragraph 6 requires local authorities:

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 - “In rural areas, locate most development for housing, jobs, shopping, leisure and services in local service centres which are designated in the development plan to act as focal points for housing, transport and other services and encourage better transport provision in the countryside.”

Regional Policy - West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Revision

 Paragraph 3.9 states that new development will be focused in particular within the five sub-regional foci of Hereford, Rugby, Shrewsbury, Telford and Worcester with;

- “New development primarily meeting locally generated needs; at a level to support balanced, sustainable communities;”

- “Rural Renaissance initiatives concentrated in the rural regeneration zone in the west of the Region;”

- “A balanced network of vital and vibrant town and city centres as the strategic focus for major retail, leisure and office developments, acting as service centres for their rural hinterlands; and

- “Transport networks improved to reduce social exclusion and improve access to services and opportunities by serving movements between and within towns and cities, towns and their rural hinterlands, and within the rural areas.”

 Paragraph 3.11, part b states: “the major shire towns and cities beyond the MUAs continuing to act as a focus for new investment to support wider regeneration and help meet the economic, social and cultural needs of surrounding rural areas:”

- “Building upon their traditional strengths of historic heritage and high quality environment, particularly in the cathedral cities of Worcester, Hereford and Lichfield . . . “

 Paragraph 3.11, Part C: “Other parts of the region, particularly other main towns and villages, all building on their locational strengths, environmental qualities, regeneration opportunities and the linkages between them and with their local hinterlands to deliver improved local services and develop their own distinctive roles and character.”

 Policy RR1: Rural Renaissance

- Part A: “Rural areas of the West Midlands will be regenerated through the improvement of choice in housing; the diversification of the rural economy; better transport links both within rural areas and between urban and rural areas; improving health, education, skills training, social, shopping, community facilities and other services, the sustainable use of environmental assets, and the prudent use of natural resources.”

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009

- Part B: “Policy priorities will vary according to a number of factors, including the quality of the environment, local character and distinctiveness, need for employment, need for additional housing, including affordable housing, to meet local needs and stem population decline, and access to services and facilities.”

- Part C ii: “Rural areas which may be remote from the MUAs, with generally sparse and in some cases declining population, poor access to jobs and services. Here the main priorities should be economic diversification, affordable housing, better services and improved public transport.”

 Policy RR2: Rural Regeneration Zone;

- Part C ii: “Strengthening the range and quality of services available to residents through the establishment of a network of rural service centres. Where possible services should be based on market towns and large villages, but in the more sparsely populated areas they may need to be more widely dispersed or mobile, reflecting the settlement pattern;” - Part C iii: “Improving accessibility to jobs and services…through improved transport (particularly public transport), better facilities such as multi-purpose centres and outreach facilities, and radical improvements to ICT infrastructures (including access to the broadband network)” - Part C iv: “Providing affordable housing to meet local needs, in existing settlements wherever possible, and making full use of the existing housing stock”

 Policy RR4: Rural services;

- Part A: “Improving the range and quality of services available to rural communities is a key component of rural renaissance.”

- Part B: “Development plan policies for housing and other forms of development should take into account the likely implications for the provision of services and facilities for the particular communities concerned, including the extent to which new development may help support the provision of local services.”

- Part C: “Development plans should set out how services will be provided for in rural areas, taking full account of the need to retain essential community services and to facilitate and provide for appropriate new and innovative forms of service delivery.”

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 3 – Other documents that have influenced the review of the Rural Settlement Hierarchy

Herefordshire Community Strategy, 2006

The Community Strategy (2006) is an overarching document that was prepared in conjunction with Herefordshire Partnership and sets out the aspirations for the County by 2020 and how they might be achieved. It is important that the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper as part of the evidence base for the local Development Framework recognises and helps address the issues raised in the Community Strategy.

Among the Community Strategy’s guiding principles are to:

 Improve business, learning and employment opportunities in Herefordshire enabling sustainable prosperity for all;

 Improving public health and quality of life and developing stronger, more inclusive communities and creating a safer and greener place to live, work and visit.

Parish Plans

The Parish Plan process enables Parish Councils, in consultation with their local communities, to establish the key priorities and future actions for each area. 43 Parish Councils in Herefordshire have completed Plans, and 12 are currently in preparation.

The priorities identified for each Parish are varied, although there are some commonalities such as the provision of affordable housing and improved public transport. Priorities such as delivering affordable housing and maintaining and enhancing the services available in rural areas can be directly influenced by policies in the Core Strategy. Identified priorities in the available Parish Plans have been used to inform the preparation of this background paper. Although some Parish Plans have been updated, it is important that they are reviewed regularly to reflect any change in circumstances and priorities, in order for them to be used to monitor planning policies. The Table in Appendix 9 shows the needs highlighted within each of the completed Parish Plans.

Housing Needs Surveys

The Council has a strategic countywide Housing Needs Survey published in 1999, and updated in 2005. In addition, there are a number of parish level Housing Needs Surveys, undertaken by the Council’s Research department, which investigates the level of local need for affordable housing. The findings of the completed housing needs surveys have been used to inform this Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper, including the level of local need from within the Parish. See Appendix 6.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment

The purpose of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is to provide an evidence base to inform the development of planning policies and housing strategies. The Council has undertaken a Strategic Housing Market Assessment jointly with Shropshire. This assessment provides evidence on the nature and influence of the housing market, the proportion of open market and affordable housing need, the mix

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 of housing needed in terms of size and type, and the proportion of tenure types required – i.e. owner occupied, rented (private or subsidised), and shared ownership. Essentially, this study has identified a significant need for affordable housing across the whole County.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

The Council is required to produce a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to inform the Core Strategy. The Assessment will provide an indication of the capacity of the County to accommodate housing development on both previously developed sites (brownfield) and greenfield sites as part of the evidence base of the Local Development Framework. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the housing requirement set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy can be fulfilled. The findings of the Assessment will help to inform the Core Strategy, Hereford Area Plan and other Market Towns and Rural Areas Plan – the documents that comprise the LDF for Herefordshire. Currently it is not yet finalised enough to inform this paper.

Water Cycle Study

The Water Study is being undertaken as part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework. The Council engaged consultants to undertake the study, which commenced April 2007 and is still ongoing.

Rural Community Sustainability Paper 2008 – Advantage West Midlands

In January 2008 Advantage West Midlands and West Midlands Regional Assembly commissioned SQW Consulting and Land Use Consultants to undertake a study into sustainable rural communities. The study focussed on eight themes. These were: housing; employment provision; IT infrastructure; green infrastructure; critical rural services; economic inclusion; low carbon principles; and economy.

The findings highlight:

- The growth of home working in rural areas. For example, in Kington 14% of the resident workforce are working from home.

- Service accessibility is declining. The Indices of Deprivation 2007 housing and services domain shows deprivation is generally higher in remote areas and lowest in urban areas.

- Affordable housing completions are poor across rural areas.

- Environmental performance (CO² per capita emissions) is poor in accessible rural areas.

- Net loss of younger people (16-30 age group) from rural districts: the proportion of young people in rural districts is below regional averages. Conversely, the proportion of the population over 65 in rural areas is greater than, and growing faster than, the regional and English averages.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 40%

30%

20%

10% home

0% Less Sparse Less Sparse Less Sparse Less Sparse sparse sparse sparse sparse

Proportion of residents working from Urban Rural towns Villages Dispersed settlements

Figure 5 – Levels of home working in rural and urban parts of the West Midlands, 2001, Advantage West Midlands

The key conclusion from the study found that all rural settlement’s need to be allowed to evolve as vibrant and dynamic places, if they are to be genuinely sustainable, and there is a need to recognise that the sustainability is a process not a state. To be more sustainable, rural communities ought to be places where people of all ages want to both live and work. The alternative tends to be in-migration of older workers and retirees into the more remote areas. Accepting that sustainability is a process there is a need to focus on outcomes for a rural sustainable community. (See Appendix 4).

The Taylor Review

The Taylor Review of rural economy and affordable housing (2008), offers 48 recommendations offering a vision of a living, working sustainable countryside and how this can be achieved. It identifies that with the new scale of housing required in the country, some villages will grow substantially, whilst others risk seeing little or no development. Matthew Taylor identifies that these villages, ‘protected’ from development face becoming increasingly exclusive communities of the retired and of wealthy commuters travelling ever longer distances to work, losing their services like schools and shops. He also identifies that the right balance of housing and employment opportunities are crucial for all communities to be sustainable.

Affordable Housing

Matthew Taylor explained that affordable housing should not be identified through an Exception Site policy, but that this should be ‘reformulated as a criteria based Community Led Affordable Housing policy within the local plan. This will require a more proactive engagement to bring forward sites for affordable homes to meet local needs in many more communities. ‘There should be a clear vision for every village to show how these needs will be met to enhance the sustainability of the community.’ This issue will be addressed in the Core Strategy and the area-specific Market Towns & Rural Areas Plan.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 4

The relationship between PPS1, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands and the Herefordshire Settlement Hierarchy Indicators. PPS1 Broad Regional Herefordshire Settlement Hierarchy Indicators Desired Outcomes from SQW Report Sustainability Sustainability Indicators Framework Sustainable Economic Sustainable consumption &  The availability of local employment opportunities.  Flourishing local economy, providing jobs and Development. production. wealth.  Viable and sustainable primary sector.  The number of people who work and live within the  Greater local production and supply of products. same settlement area.  Diverse economic base including high value and high skilled jobs in rural areas.  High rates of locally financed and initiated small enterprises.  Inclusive economy providing employment and consumption opportunities to all residents.  Variety and balance of land use between  In-commuting to a settlement for employment employment, housing and services/infrastructure. purposes.  Access to and use of cutting edge ICT. Social cohesion and Sustainable Communities.  Provision of primary schools, secondary education  Mixed communities with a balance of ages. inclusion. and library services.  No extreme inequalities in wealth or opportunities.  Provision of playgrounds and parks / amenity open  Local distinctiveness and pride of place. space.  Safe and healthy neighbourhoods.  Provision of health facilities – doctors / dentists  Strong, effective and inclusive governance. surgeries.  Alignment between workplace-based and  Provision of other community facilities – community residence-based earnings. / village halls, place of worship, public houses / bars  A range of services to meet personal, community / inns and restaurants / cafes / takeaways. and economic needs (inc education and training,  Provision of retail facilities – comparison and healthcare, leisure and retail). convenience shops, post office, bank / building society.  Public Transport access to Higher Order Centres via bus and rail services.  Identified needs e.g. affordable housing. Protection and Natural Resource protection  Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Attractive and accessible countryside. enhancement of the and environmental  Character/form of village.  Efficient consumption of resources and energy. environment. enhancement.  Space for renewable energy production and sustainable transport.

Supplementary paper to Climate change and energy  Accessibility to services generally by walking,  Greater availability of sustainable forms of travel. PPS1 cycling, public transport.  Reduced need to travel and car dependency.  Areas at risk of flooding

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 5 Summary Matrix

Key Services Constraints Approximate number of Public Existing residential Pub / Village Primary Post Cash Train Total Total Travel To Total transport Shop employment Flooding AONB dwellings within Restaurant Hall School office point Station Other Needs Work Points provision site the main village envelope Weobley 437 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30 8 1 63 Ewyas Harold 460 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 12 3 60 Leintwardine 243 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 20 4 2 49 Peterchurch 341 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 16 8 2 47 (W) Kingsland 312 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 16 9 1 46 Fownhope 406 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 16 8 0 45  Marden 484 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12 11 0 44 Colwall 8483 3 333333 396143  Kingstone 440 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 14 5 1 43 Eardisley 242 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 9 9 2 40  Wellington 261 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 10 1 39 Shobdon 253 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 7 7 2 39 Orleton 291 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 9 1 38 (N) Madley 376 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 13 4 1 38 Pembridge 227 3 3 3 3 1 12 10 2 37 Credenhill 728 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 5 0 37  Cradley 418 0 3 3 3 3 3 10 9 1 35 (E) Canon Pyon 117 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 4 1 34 Withington 352 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 2 0 33 Lea 218 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 3 1 33 Bishops Frome 163 3 3 3 3 3 1 12 3 2 33 Much Birch 162 3 3 3 3 9 10 2 33 Longtown 106 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 3 33  Moreton on 337 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 6 0 32 Lugg Goodrich 187 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 2 1 31  Much Marcle 106 0 3 3 3 3 3 9 5 2 31 Garway 83 3 3 3 3 3 7 6 2 30 Wigmore 283 0 3 3 3 3 3 5 6 2 28 Cusop 110 3 3 3 3 2 4 8 2 28 Bodenham 270 3 3 3 14 3 2 28 Moor Brimfield 252 0 3 3 3 2 10 5 1 27  Gorsley 184 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 1 27 Tarrington 140 3 3 3 810027 Clehonger 448 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 6 1 27 Staunton on 128 3 3 3 3 8 5 2 27 Wye Almeley 129 3 3 3 3 1 1 10 2 26 Sutton St 287 3 3 3 3 7 7 0 26 Nicholas Peterstow 130 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 26  Burghill 250 3 3 3 8 8 0 25 Bosbury 143 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 1 25 Whitchurch 239 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 1 25  Yarpole 123 3 3 3 3 2 10 1 25 Dorstone 97 3 3 3 3 1 9 1 2 25

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 5 Summary Matrix

Key Services Constraints Approximate number of Public Existing residential Pub / Village Primary Post Cash Train Total Total Travel To Total transport Shop employment Flooding AONB dwellings within Restaurant Hall School office point Station Other Needs Work Points provision site the main village envelope Holme Lacy 117 3 3 3 6 9 1 25 Luston 179 3 3 3 5 9 1 24 Wellington 168 3 3 3 77124 Heath Bridstow 89 3 3 3 3 5 6 1 24  Walford 224 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 23  (Coughton) Weston under 155 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 23 Penyard Upton Bishop & 124 3 3 3 210223 Crow Hill Allensmore 62 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 1 1 23  Whitbourne 109 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 23 Bartestree 478 3 3 3 3 3 5 2 0 22 Brilley 31 0 3 3 86222 Burley Gate 52 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 1 22 Michealchurch 29 3 3 3 3 6 1 3 22  Escley Little 130 3 3 3 3 1 8 1 22 Dewchurch Pontrilas 66 3 3 3 3 2 5 1 2 22  Hope under 115 3 3 3 3 5 3 2 22 Dinmore Stretton 79 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 0 22 Sugwas Linton (South) 110 3 3 3 3 2 6 1 21 Llangrove 211 0 3 3 3 6 5 1 21 Eardisland 142 3 3 3 64120 Wilton 180 3 3 3 8 1 1 19  Bredenbury 76 0 3 3 3 3 5 1 1 19 Lyonshall 110 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 19 Stoke Prior 71 0 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 19 Norton Canon 30 3 3 3 3 4 1 2 19 Bodenham 69 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 19 Mordiford 72 3 3 3 3 3 4 0 19  Brampton Bryan 51 0 3 3 9 1 2 18  Pencombe 89 0 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 18 Lingen 42 0 3 3 3 5 2 2 18  Dilwyn 123 0 3 3 3 4 4 1 18 Ashperton 62 0 3 3 3 3 4 2 18 Wormbridge 58 3 3 3 6 1 1 17 Woolhope 67 3 3 3 15217  St Weonards 30 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 17 Welsh Newton 48 0 3 3 3 5 1 1 16 Common Preston on Wye 61 0 3 3 3 4 1 2 16

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 5 Summary Matrix

Key Services Constraints Approximate number of Public Existing residential Pub / Village Primary Post Cash Train Total Total Travel To Total transport Shop employment Flooding AONB dwellings within Restaurant Hall School office point Station Other Needs Work Points provision site the main village envelope Kimbolton 90 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 16 Much Cowarne 41 0 3 3 3 2 2 2 15  Lower Eggleton 23 0 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 15  Aymestrey 36 3 3 3 31215 Kilpeck 39 3 3 3 2 2 1 14 Titley 49 3 3 3 21214 Monkland 46 0 3 3 61114 Little Birch 101 3 3 3 21214 Tillington 110 3 3 3 4 1 0 14 Common Kings Caple 84 3 3 3 1 2 2 14  Vowchurch 56 3 3 41314 Stoke Cross / 61 0 3 3 51214 Stoke Lacy Newtown 35 3 3 3 2 1 2 14 Whitney on Wye 26 0 3 3 1 3 1 2 13  Aston Ingham 39 0 3 3 42113 Much 104 3 3 3 12113 Dewchurch Brampton 109 3 3 32213  Abbots Richard’s Castle 79 3 3 3 12113 Rowlstone 20 0 3 51312 Little Hereford 24 0 3 3 41112 Leysters 48 0 3 3 3 1 1 1 12 Winnal 56 0 3 3 3 1 1 1 12 Winforton 71 0 3 3 31212 Llangarron 48 0 3 53112 Wormelow 131 3 3 3 0 1 2 12 Lugwardine 174 3 3 33012 Eaton Bishop 88 3 3 31111 Putley 63 0 3 3 2 1 2 11 Dormington 51 3 35011 Staunton on 34 3 3 21211 Arrow Bringsty / Bringsty 75 3 3 3 0 1 1 11 Common Letton 27 3 3 21211 Bishopstone 80 3 25111 Symonds Yat 60 0 3 51110 (East) Docklow 33 0 3 41210 Bishopswood 47 0 3 3 2 1 1 10 Edwyn Ralph 62 0 3 3 2 1 1 10

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 5 Summary Matrix

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 6 Needs table Services and Facilitites

Surplus Improved Improved Surplus High Open Open Space / Indoor Improved Additional Primary Affordable Convenience Post Office Community Employment Public footpaths / Characterisation Youth Improved Total Settlement Broadband school Market recreation leisure Health pre-school School Housing shop provision Facilities land needed Transport cycleways / assessment facilities Utilites Needs places Housing Needs facilities Facilities facilities places provision bridleways

Ewyas Harold 11 6 1 11 1113 Marden 11 2 1 1 11 1 11 11 Wellington 11 3 1 11 1 1 10 Pembridge 131 1111110 Upton Bishop & 111111111110 Crow Hill Almeley 12111111 110

Tarrington 12111112 10 Yarpole 12111111 110 Holme Lacy 11 3 1 1 11 110 Much Birch 11 3 1 11 1110 Cradley 11 2 1 11 11 9

Eardisley 11 2 1 1 1 1 19 Kingsland 121111119 Luston 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 Weobley 1112 1 118 Peterchurch 11 1 1 1 11 18 Burghill 11 1 1 1 11 18 Fownhope 11 2 1 1 11 8 Little Dewchurch 11 1 1 1 11 18 Cusop 121111 18

Sutton St Nicholas 11 1 1 1 11 7

Shobdon 11 1 1 1 117 Wellington Heath 121 11 1 7 Wigmore 11 111 16 Brilley 1111116 Colwall 11 3 16 Moreton on Lugg 1111116

Orleton 11 3 1 6

Clehonger 11 4 6

Garway 11 3 1 6 Bridstow 11 3 1 6 Longtown 11 4 6 Linton (South) 11 11 15 Kingstone 1112 5 Credenhill 11 3 5 Bishopstone 1 111 15 Brimfield 121 1 5 Dormington 1 111 15 Middleton on the 11 11 1 5 Hill Staunton on Wye 11 1 1 1 5

Walford (Coughton) 11 1 1 1 5 Appendix 6 Needs table Services and Facilitites

Weston under 11 11 15 Penyard Whitchurch 11 2 1 5 Woolhope 111 1 15 Llangrove 11 3 5 Much Marcle 11 3 5 Canon Pyon 11 1 1 4 Hampton Bishop 11 11 4 Leintwardine 11 2 4 Madley 13 4

Dilwyn 11 1 1 4

Bosbury 11 1 1 4

Eardisland 11 11 4

Ashperton 11 1 14

Mordiford 121 4 Stretton Sugwas 11 2 4 Brockhampton 11 1 3 Bodenham 11 1 3 Breinton 1 11 3 Llangarron 1 11 3 Lyonshall 12 3 Weston Beggard 1 11 3 Lea 11 1 3 Bishops Frome 12 3 Gorsley 11 1 3 Stoke Prior 12 3 Lugwardine 11 1 3 Hope under 11 13 Dinmore Whitbourne 11 1 3 Peterstow 12 3 Bartestree 11 2

Kings Pyon 1 1 2

St Weonards 11 2

Brampton Abbots 11 2

Burley Gate 11 2

Kimbolton 11 2

Kings Caple 11 2

Aston Ingham 1 1 2 Appendix 6 Needs table Services and Facilitites

Bodenham Moor 1 12

Clifford 11 2 Eastnor 11 2 Goodrich 11 2

Ivington 11 2

Kilpeck 1 1 2

Much Cowarne 11 2

Much Dewchurch 11 2 Orcop 11 2 Pencombe 11 2 Pipe and Lyde 1 1 2

Stretton Grandison 1 1 2

Withington 11 2 Lingen 1 12

Stapleton 1 12

Richard’s Castle 11 2

Abbeydore 1 1

Aconbury 1 1 Adforton 1 1 Allensmore 1 1

Ashton 1 1

Aymestrey 1 1 Bacton 1 1 Bircher 1 1

Bishopswood 1 1

Blakemere 1 1

Brampton Bryan 1 1

Bredenbury 1 1

Bredwardine 1 1

Brierley 1 1

Bringsty / Bringsty 1 1 Common Broad Oak 1 1 Bromsash 1 1 Appendix 6 Needs table Services and Facilitites

Burmarsh 1 1 Bush Bank 1 1 Byford 1 1 Canon Frome 1 1 Cobhall Common 1 1 Cobnash 1 1 Coddington 1 1 Combe Moor 1 1

Didley 1 1

Dinedor 1 1 Docklow 1 1 Dorstone 10 1 Eaton Bishop 1 1 Edwyn Ralph 1 1 Eggleton 1 1

Eyton 1 1

Fromes Hill 1 1

Glewstone 1 1 Harewood End 1 1

Hatfield 1 1

Hergest 1 1 Hoarwithy 1 1 Holme Marsh 1 1 Howle Hill 1 1 Kerne Bridge 1 1 Kingsthorne 1 1 Kinnersley 1 1 Kinsham 1 1 Ledgemoor 1 1 Leinthall Earls 1 1

Leinthall Starkes 1 1

Letton 1 1 Leysters 1 1 Linton (North) 1 1 Litmarsh 1 1 Little Birch 1 1 Little Hereford 1 1 Little Tarrington 1 1 Llancloudy 1 1 Llanwarne 1 1 Appendix 6 Needs table Services and Facilitites

Lower Eggleton 1 1

Lower Maescoyd 1 1 Lucton 1 1

Mansel Lacy 1 1

Mathon 1 1

MB/ The Cleaver 1 1 Michealchurch 1 1 Escley Moccas 1 1

Monkhide 1 1

Monkland 1 1

Moorhampton 1 1

Moreton 1 1

Mortimers Cross 1 1

Munderfield 1 1 Newtown 1 1

Norton Canon 1 1

Ocle Pychard 1 1 Pontrilas 1 1 Pontshill 1 1 Preston on Wye 1 1 Priors Frome 1 1 Priory Wood 1 1 Pudlestone 1 1 Putley 1 1

Risbury 1 1

Rowlstone 1 1

Ruckhall 1 1 Rushall 1 1

Shelwick 1 1

Shirlheath 1 1

Shucknall 1 1

St Owens Cross 1 1

Staunton on Arrow 1 1 Appendix 6 Needs table Services and Facilitites

Steensbridge 1 1

Stoke Edith 1 1

Stoke Cross 1 1

Swainshill 1 1

Symonds Yat (East) 1 1

Three Ashes 1 1

Thruxton 1 1

Tillington Common 1 1

Titley 1 1

Twyford Common 1 1

Tyberton 1 1 Ullingswick 1 1 Upper Hill 1 1

Upper Lyde 1 1

Upton Crews 1 1 Vauld 1 1 Vowchurch 1 1 Walford (North) 1 1 Welsh Newton 1 1 Common Westhide 1 1 Westhope 1 1

Wharton 1 1

Whitney on Wye 1 1 Wilton 1 1 Winforton 1 1 Winnal 1 1

Withington Marsh 1 1

Woonton 1 1 Wormbridge 1 1 Wormelow 1 1 Yatton 1 1 Yazor 1 1 Appendix 7 – Methodology / Scoring System

Accessibility

The accessibility to settlements around the County has been calculated using a computer system called Accession, which works from up to date bus timetables and postcode areas. The accessibility of a settlement was scored if there was provision of sustainable transport to the closest market town, both inbound and outbound at peak times, to accommodate work commuters.

Peak times are as follows: 07.30am – 09.00am, 16.30pm – 18.00pm weekdays, and between 09.00am – 17.30pm Saturday interpeak. For the matrix, the scores were awarded as follows;

 Any settlements where there was accessibility identified for peak time travel to a Market town or Hereford – 3 points  Any settlements where there wasn’t the presence of peak time travel to and from the market towns or Hereford City – 0 points.

Please note, as areas are covered by postcode rather than place name, there could be the possibility of small anomalies within the data.

Travel to Work Patterns

Ranking applied to travel to work patterns:

 3 = between 25% and 30% of people both live and work within the settlement/ward.  2 = between 20% and 24% of people both live and work within the settlement/ward.  1 = between 15% and 19% of people both live and work within the settlement/ward.  0 = less than 15% of people both live and work within the settlement/ward.

The information was taken from the 2001 Census and based on the number of people both living and working within the same rural ward.

Employment Site rankings:

Employment sites were identified as part of the Employment Land Study (June 2009) that was undertaken by Consultants as part of the LDF. These sites were then given a rating within the study dependant on a number of factors as follows:

 ‘Best’ - Very good quality relatively unconstrained sites suitable for local or incoming clients with a national / regional choice of locations;  ‘Good’ – Sites which may be subject to some constraints but with potential to be suitable for inward investors and / or locally-based businesses;  ‘Moderate’ – Sites which score poorly against one or more qualitative factors but which (could) perform a role in the employment hierarchy, including for local businesses;  ‘Poor’ – Generally poor quality sites with significant constraints and often in inappropriate locations. It should be noted that for the purposes of the rural settlement hierarchy the location of some of these sites in the rural areas may be of benefit to the local residents.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 7 – Methodology / Scoring System

As this paper deals with the rural settlements as opposed to Hereford City or the market towns, there have been no ‘best’ employment sites identified in the rural areas.

Therefore the ranking of employment sites on this basis are as follows:

3 – Sites identified in the employment land study as ‘Good’ 2 – Sites identified in the employment land study as ‘ Moderate’ 1 – Sites identified in the employment land study as ‘ Poor’

Some Industrial Estates within the study were split and therefore potentially ranked differently according to the quality, size and potential constraints within that part of the industrial estate. Therefore if there were two ranked sites within the same village, for the purposes of this report, the highest ranking was considered.

There has been one special circumstance made for Credenhill, the SAS camp which employs between 300-500 civilians as well as many military staff. This was not identified within the employment land study this is due to the military nature of the employer. It is considered that as a very large employer, which supports local services and facilities within the area, it should be allocated 3 points as per other employment sites.

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 8 – ‘Needs’ Methods and Scoring System

Affordable Housing

The affordable housing need has derived from local housing needs studies, where strategic housing department have then calculated the number of additional affordable houses required to fulfil the need. The scoring of this was done in such a way that the higher the number of houses, the higher the need was therefore the score needed to recognise this;

 Between 1-10 additional affordable houses needed – 1 point  Between 11-20 additional affordable houses needed – 2 points  Between 21-30 additional affordable houses needed – 3 points  Between 31-40 additional affordable houses needed – 4 points  Between 41-50 additional affordable houses needed – 5 points  Between 51-60 additional affordable houses needed – 6 points

The following settlements have not had a housing need survey completed, however they are all due for completion within 2009. As a consequence the matrix will be updated as the surveys are completed through the year.

Goodrich Wigmore Moreton-on-Lugg Withington Weston-under Penyard

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009 Appendix 9 - Summary of the needs identified in Parish Plans

Need for:

Open Space & Leisure Facilities for Open Market Affordable Community Important services Employment & the Transport infrastructure, Ensuring high quality, Education Housing Housing focal points promotion of local choices, movement and locally distinctive economies communications sustainable design and construction

A focal point for Affordable Establish Retention of Post office. Employment Develop concept of Parish Street lights only to be community activities. housing community Retention of fire station opportunities to retain ‘Loop’ for walkers and/or used in matters of specifically for centre. at Eardisley. the young. cyclists. safety. people with Keep primary school. Reroute large vehicles. Improve Reduce use of overhead local Improve recycling Favour local farm shops car parking. wires on new buildings. connection. facilities. and farmers’ markets. On-demand bus services & Protect visual amenity. Need improvements to Enrich agriculture with improving bus routes. utilities (gas). broader food sector. Broadband needed. Pedestrian/cyclist/equestrian safety. Almeley ‘Quiet lanes’

Provision of sports Improved footpath and cycle Resist further pitch/adventure routes. development in the playground/tennis Improved road safety. parish. courts/bike track. Traffic calming. Promote rural nature of Create parish green on Improved bus routes/frequency. the Parish. landfill site. Need for bypass.

Protect open areas. Off-street parking. s s Nature reserves. e e Belmont Rural u u s s s s I I Adult education. Individual homes Small Need for a Extension to kerbside Well maintained and accessible No housing near to

not groups. affordable community collections. rights of way. A438. h h s s family homes. centre. Recycling facilities. Improved and affordable bus No new small business i i r r Improvements to service. units. a a sewage system. Need Safe pedestrian route (along Maintain area as P P improvements to utilities A438). residential/ (gas/water). Traffic calming/road agricultural. safety/speed limits. Bishopstone Improved school transport.

Recreation facilities. Adult & higher Sympathetic Protect Post office. Help for small local Attract Broadband. New development to be education. small-scale Provision of essential businesses. Community transport. sympathetic to local Skills training. affordable services (ie. Support agriculture as Improved bus frequency & links environment. housing for Healthcare). major economic base. between other transport types. Reuse of derelict sites local people. Recycling facilities. Speed limits/traffic calming. for new development. Reroute large vehicles. Road safety. Border Group More footpaths & circular walks.

Kerbside recycling Well-maintained and accessible facility & parish recycling footpaths. Need for cycle lane. point. Improved bus routes & bus frequency. Traffic calming. Breinton Road maintenance. Parish Issues

Eardisley Dormington & Cusop Cradley & Colwall Burghill Brilley Mordiford Storridge Provision of Sports facilities. Youth facilities. Recreation area. Children’s play area. public space. Create a facilities. Leisure andsports circuit. Junior motocross young. the Playarea for recreational use. recreational use. for Open areas (Whitney). point Community focal people. facilitiesyoung for Provision ofleisure (Mordiford). Create villagegreen people. youngMore facilitiesfor allresidents. area for pleasant green Create a people. facilitiesyoung for Need todevelop green. Creation ofvillage Support youth club. children. older young and Play equipment for training. and skills Adult education education. Further needs. meet localsocial Housing only to developments. No housing individually. distributed Houses next 5 years. years. next 5 development for No housing social needs. to meetlocal Housing only affordable. smaller and housing – Better mixof housing. Affordable housing. dedicated Sheltered/ local people. affordable for size & small/medium built, tobe Any housing housing. affordable Small-scale housing. Sheltered New villagehall.

New villagehall. in Colwall surgery chiropody atthe physiotherapist & Recycling facilities. Kerbside recycling. facilities. Improved recycling Recycling facilities. Dental care. Keep Brilley school. Recycling facilities. Kerbside recycling. Public toilets (Eardisley). Local shops. hairdressing). Retail, health, parish services(ie. for Construction ofunits Recycling facilities.

is alocalneed. accommodation ifthere Small-scale business Rural enterprise. Rural enterprise. opportunities. Local employment light industry. Small unitsforcraftsand opportunities. Local employment enterprises. local Support for businesses. Promote local Quiet lanes. Improved busservices. Speed limits. Quiet lanes. Speed limits. Car parking. alternative transport. Community service& bus Road safety. (B4420). - Pedestrian safety Improve localfootpaths. Quiet lanes. Car parking. disabled. walkershorses, andthe accessfor Footpath/bridleway Broadband access. Reroute heavy vehicles. Speed limits. Road safety. service. bus Local transport/regular church andschool). (between Footpath needed Car parking (Eardisley). Car parking Broadband. Pedestrian safety. Reroute heavy vehicles. Additional pavements. Safer roads. Alternative transport. routes. Improved busservices/ Speed limits. pavements. & Extensions tofootpaths Road safety. Reroute heavy vehicles. Car parking. Cycle lanes. Traffic calming/speedlimits. Community transport. & affordability. frequency Improved busroutes, Cycle routes. walkers.riders & forhorse Provide saferoutes Improved busservice. Road safety. Additional pavements. Pedestrian safety. developments. on Adoption ofallroads Car parking. Speed limits. on community needs. on community needs. for theschoolsitebased Establish adesign brief development. Primarily infill character ofparish. Housing torespect Reduce lightpollution. parish. of nature Protect rural the parish. of keeping with nature Housing tobein- housing. Careful designof lighting. street Inappropriate from localbusinesses. Tackle lightpollution development. Restrict further Noise pollution. Street lighting. Only infilldevelopment. Resist urban creep. Parish Issues

Kingsland Kings Holme Lacy Hampton Bishop Foxley Fownhope Ewyas Harold Caple Sports facilities. equipment. playwith A playground green/meeting place. Create avillage Need sportsfacilities. young children. area for play fenced outdoor a separate Need for Nature trail. Nature trail. Sports facilities. Youth facilities. area. Adventure-play reserve. nature Creation ofa for wildlife. area Provide anatural outside activities. for club andhardarea Youth – young people Improve facilities for schemes. clubs andplay- After-school Adult education. playschemes. and classes, clubs education more adult Provision of Adult education.

the area. character with To bein (if necessary). development housing Affordable housing. Affordable disabled. elderly & Housing for families. young houses for smaller Affordable and

and fitness. including heath facilities Increase social activities. community Facilities for facilities. recycling Parish sewage capacity. improvements to without adequate No moredevelopment facilities. Improved recycling sewerage facilities. Mains gasand members wellparish for beingof club Health andfitness collections. Weekly recycling linked tothistheme. attracting businesses as anhistoricvillage HaroldDevelop Ewyas

small businesses. accommodation for of Increase supply Car parking. Car parking. Speed limits. Car parking. Improved busservices. Improved footpaths. Road safety. Improved busroutes. busservice. Reliable &frequent Community transport. Mordiford). Cycleway (Hereford to network. Accessible &extendedfootpath EH). & (Pontrilas Pedestrian safety network. Cycle paths&linkstocycle Car parking. Rail link. footways. Need forcontinuous Hereford. to andfrom busservices Need forimproved

Road safety. Road safety. Broadband. Reroute heavy vehicles. Speed limits. Alternative transport. School &youth transport. Cycle lanes. access. /bridleway Improved footpath Broadband. safety. Pedestrian &road Car parking. Traffic calming. direct service toRoss. withImproved busservices a Cycle-ways. pavements. Accessible footpathsand relating tonoise. Enforce legislation housing. ‘green’ designfor Developers touse traditional materials. traditional materials. New housesbuiltwith area. of nature Retain rural No streetlighting. current villageenvelope. past No development No infill. lighting. Appropriate street builds. efficient systems innew water & Use energy relating tolightpollution. Enforce legislation design, materialsetc. i.e. to new development Review policiesrelating

Need for a play and Affordable Parish recycling Subsidised bus travel (for full Control unattractive kick-about area for housing. collections and facilities. time education & between development. older children and a Newent, Gorsley & Ross). fenced playground for Safer parking. young children. Traffic noise (M50) & volume. New youth club and Road safety. mountain bike circuit. Speed limits. Better-defined village Improved footpaths (Gorsley). centre with public open Reroute heavy vehicles. space/playing Pedestrian safety. Linton field/picnic site.

Provide shelter for Village club Speed limits. Use of local materials. young people on the facilities to Mains gas. Bridleway opportunities. playing field and all house different Road safety. weather play equipment community Improve mobile phone playing field. activities. coverage. Improve public transport.

Little Dewchurch

Pre school facilities. Affordable Improved footpath network. No more pollution from Leisure facilities and housing. Car parking. street lighting. recreation area. Provision of village Road safety (A49). Enhance wildlife shop/post office. Avoid construction of environment. Parish recycling communications masts. Protect open areas and collections and facilities. Speed limits. spaces. Traffic volume.

Luston

Play area for children Skills training & Community Improved bus routes. New housing

(6-12 yrs) and a youth adult education. centre. Retain village school. Traffic calming/speed limits. development in-keeping s s centre. Health services. Car parking. with local environment. e e Day care centre for the Parish recycling Pedestrian safety. u u s s elderly. facilities. Improved footpaths. s s I I Sports facilities. Community transport.

Reroute heavy vehicles. h h s s Road safety. i i r r a Marden a P P Include within the county cycle Sports ground/play Adult education. Affordable network. area. housing. Possible extension to More accessible bridleways and parish recycling footpaths. facilities. Provision of Improved school transport. mobile health services. Speed limits. Road safety. Community transport. Improved public transport. Cycle paths. Broadband.

Middleton-on-the-Hill Provision of bakers Reliable and frequent bus Sports facilities. and/or greengrocer. service. Site for a wildlife area. Health services. Community transport. Retain village post Speed limits. office. Pedestrian safety. Parish recycling Cycle path. facilities. Restrict through traffic. Traffic calming. Moreton-on-Lugg Car parking. School and community Youth club for leisure Adult education. Affordable transport. activities. housing & Car parking. Additional playgrounds sheltered Parish recycling Extend footpath system to other and play equipment. housing. collections and facilities. villages. Mains gas & mains Cycle-ways. drainage. Traffic calming/speed limits. Road safety (A49). Pedestrian safety. Improved bus routes and frequency. Much Birch Broadband.

Venues for outdoor Support and encourage Maintain existing footpaths and Ensure new housing has sporting activities. Keep Burley Gate local farming. bridleways and create new a positive impact on School. paths for circular walks. environment. Parish recycling Broadband. Noise control. facilities. Mitigate light pollution. Promote eco friendly Much Cowarne & Ocle Pychard technologies.

More ‘grown up’ play Adult education. Environmentally friendly area. new buildings. Orleton

Recreational equipment Affordable Sheltered Attract new businesses Car parking. Sufficient parking for for young people. Need housing. housing. Health care. to the village. Reroute heavy vehicles. new housing for a safe sheltered Parish recycling Traffic calming/ speed limits. development. meeting area for young facilities. Bypass. Street furniture to people. Broadband. reinforce ambience of Leisure facilities. Improve public transport. village.

Pembridge s s e e Provision of youth ‘chill Adult education. New community Access to footpaths and u u out’ shelter. hall. bridleways. Inadequate street s s

s Play areas & skate Speed limits. lighting. s I I

park. Cycle paths. h h Need for sport Improve public transport. s s i i recreation and leisure Pedestrian safety. r r a a facilities. Peterchurch P P

Develop land for Improve facilities Pedestrian safety. sports/play area. at local halls Include play areas in (Munsley & housing association Putley).

Pixley plans.

Provide a youth shelter After school Affordable Youth bus service. Street lighting and open & youth club. youth training. housing. Upgrade sewage system Improved bus frequency. space to be included in Sports facilities. Adult education. prior to new houses Traffic calming/speed limits. new development. being built. Car parking. Parish recycling Pedestrian safety. facilities. Reroute heavy vehicles.

Shobdon

Facilities for young Traffic calming. people. Road safety. Areas for outdoor activities. Need for playgrounds and sports facilities. Need for a village Stoke Lacy green. Parish Issues

Weobley Wellington Wellington Walford Upton Bishop Tarrington Sutton Heath Play areas. facilities. Need forsports recreation equipment. people’s Young Kick-about/play area. facilities. field Improving playing play. facilities andyoung young. Skateboarding thevery youth and Community facilitiesfor green. Reinstate bowling Maintain openspaces. After-school facilities. Sports facilities. Skateboard park. facilitiesyoung. forthe Social andleisure Adult education. Adult fitnessfacilities. activities. formal andinformal for an area Need for play area. Additional equipped Nature reserves. area/village green. a recreation Need for play area. provision forchildren's developments make that allnewhousing and access.Ensure Playing fieldextension Playarea for facilities. youth Youth cluband Restrict future Adult education. Youth education. Youth education. Resist large- Adult education. Harmonious

size. development development. scale development. infill housing. Sheltered housing. Affordable homes. No executive period. during UDP development further large housing. No Affordable housing. Affordable

facility. community Single more facilities. Larger hall with New primary school. New primary school. local healthclinics. Provision ofoccasional collections andfacilities. recycling Parish dentist. Provision ofNHS to visitthevillage. facilities. Doctor /nurse Improve recycling collections andfacilities. recycling Parish centre ofthevillage. Protect commercial development. Small-scale commercial collections andfacilities recycling Parish Health visitor centre/ surgery/Health Health services,i.e.,GP Mains gasandsewage. collection. Kerbside recycling Health serviceslocally. Provision ofcommunity office. &post Community shop

light industry. Diversified local craft or Road safety. Road safety. Traffic calming/speedlimits. Improved busservice. School transport. from Ledbury. toand Safe footpath/cycleway tothecar. Adopt alternatives Establish cycle network. network. and bridleway Extend footpath B4234). (main Continuous footways Improved publictransport. walks. circular Create more Improved accesstofootpaths. Road safety. Speed limits. Improved trafficflow. Alternative transport. Pedestrian safety. Traffic calming/speedlimits. Car parking. accessible buses. & more Improved busroutes Additional pavements. cycleway linked totheschool. new and ways/footpaths safety alongcycle- Improved Community transport. swimming pool. localbusserviceto Support for Pedestrian safety. Recreational footpaths. Community transport. status thanfootpath. Public rightsofway –ofhigher Traffic calming/speedlimits. Improved busservice. Improved publictransport. Road safety. Traffic calming. more circularwalks. Additional footpathstocreate

Retain greenbelt. lighting. Minimise useof street village. of and shape of property improvements indesign Encourage development size. Restrict future Minimise lightpollution. surroundings. character with Development in future development. in Low noisetarmac in development. Include disabledaccess structures. Avoid modern conservation area. Use oflocalmaterialsin lighting. appropriate Some areaslackingin countryside. Preserve open environmental impact. have minimal Future development to pollution. Tackle noise&light Parish recycling More frequent bus service. Retain and respect collection and facilities. Pedestrian safety (A40). open spaces. Improve quality of water Speed limits. Remain a rural supply. Reroute heavy vehicles. settlement. Update sewage system. Weston- under- Penyard Improve maintenance of Parish recycling footpaths, byways and collection. bridleways. More and accessible pavements. Road safety. Whitchurch & Ganarew Traffic calming.

Youth facilities. Local employment Footpaths needed. Mitigate against light Sports facilities. opportunities. Community transport. pollution from street Public toilets. Traffic calming. lighting. s s e e Village hall. Wigmore u u Car parking. s s s s I I

Youth club. Re-establish old footpaths and h h Improve facilities in the create a bridleway around the s s i i Children's play area by parish. r r a a the provision of Car parking. P P additional equipment. Woolhope Maintain footpaths and make Play areas. more accessible. Disabled access to Youth club. Development of Yarpole Support and develop Speed limits. stores. stores and post office. small businesses. Reroute heavy vehicles. Resist street lighting. Develop local economy Car parking. by promoting use of Community transport. local skills. Improve cycle routes. Road safety. Yarpole Improve public transport.

Appendix 10 - Broadband availability map Broadband availabiltiy as of May 2008 Source: BT ADSL checker -SDSL enabled exchange -ADSL enabled exchange LEINTWARDINE Line rate up to 0.512 Mbps 13 - Line rate up to 1 Mbps 41 A A 4 Line rate up to 2 Mbps 1 1 0 Service 'Very unlikely' No data -WIGMORE - A456 ORLETON

- - - SHOBDON KINGSLAND -

A44 LEOMINSTER- PEMBRIDGE - - KINGTON- - -

A BROMYARD- 41 11 HOPE-UNDER-DINMORE - - WEOBLEY - BODENHAM - 12 A41 A 4 1 EARDISLEY 7 - A 4 CANON PYON 8 - 0 BISHOPS FROME A438 - 65 -BURLEY GATE - A4 MORETON-ON-LUGG- BREDWARDINE - - 3 - - 0 HAY-ON-WYE - 1 DORSTONE 4 A BARTESTREE - -TARRINGTON A4 River Wye 10 HEREFORD- - A MADLEY 4 - 1 -PETERCHURCH HAMPTON BISHOP 7 CLEHONGER 2 LEDBURY-

) (T KINGSTONE 9 4 - A - FOWNHOPE - - MUCH MARCLE - - - - 9 ) 44 - 5(T A A46 - PONTRILAS - T) - 49( A4 - - ROSS-ON-WYE-

- LEA -

A A 4 4 6 1 6 ) T 3 ( 7 -40 A

SYMONDS YAT

Broadband availability in Herefordshire by postcode Herefordshire Council Source: BT ADSL broadband checker Research Team PO Box 4, Plough Lane SCALE 1: 286,000 Hereford, HR4 0XH Tel.: (01432) 260000 E-mail: [email protected]

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Herefordshire Council. 100024168. (2006) Appendix 11 - Environmental Constraints Map Appendix 12 - Public transport accessibility for rural service centres Appendix 13 - 5km buffer zones for rural service centres Appendix 14 – Smaller Settlement Identification

Option 2 – Villages in 5km of a RSC or Market Town, with affordable housing only elsewhere

Almeley Lyonshall Bartestree Monkland Bishopstone Pembridge Brampton Bryan Peterstow Bridstow Pontrilas Brimfield Richards Castle Canon Pyon Stoke Prior Cusop Stretton Sugwas Dilwyn Sutton St Nicholas Dorstone Swainshill Eardisland Walford Hope-under-Dinmore Wellington Heath Kimbolton Weston under Penyard Lea Winforton Lugwardine Yarpole Luston

Option 3 – Villages with public transport and 4 or more key services, with affordable housing only elsewhere

Allensmore Goodrich Almeley Gorsley Bartestree Lea Bishops Frome Longtown Bosbury Pembridge Burley Gate Peterstow Canon Pyon Pontrilas Cusop Stretton Sugwas Dorstone Weston under Penyard Fownhope Whitbourne Garway Whitchurch

Option 4 – Villages with at least 5 Key Services, regardless of Public Transport, with affordable housing only elsewhere

All of the settlements identified in Option 3 plus:

Cradley Much Marcle Garway Wigmore

Draft Options Rural Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper July 2009