update and consultation feedback - wordpress-138321-400696...

Update and Consultation Feedback

September 2018

Structure

Neighbourhood Development Planning

Sites Update

Phase 2 Questionnaire Responses

Current Stage & Sub-Groups

Neighbourhood Development Plan

Legal document

Our wishes for development (In line with national and local polices – no development is not an option)

Provides the opportunity to shape the growth in Milton Abbas

Written by the community for the community

Site Update

40-60 houses

Now clear NDP group did not indicate this land was available for development back in 2016

Latest letter online

Call for sites now open

Plan period 2011 – 2031

Landowners interested in 1 or more homes, or any other new development

Provisional (not binding) and at this stage

Letter and application online or contact NDP group

Deadline 5th October

Phase 2 Consultation

September 2018

Methodology

140 completed questionnaires received

Checked for validity

Anonymised for GDPR purposes

All responses coded and entered into ‘buckets’

Peer review & validation of data

Report findings

Your view on the appropriate number of new homes in the parish

10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-700%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

22%

38%

26%

9%

4%2%

Q1: What is your view on the appropriate number of new homes within Milton Abbas Parish boundary from now to 2031?

Number of new homes

Appropriate design and style

Good design/build quality - enhance village scene

Innovative/novel design/eco homes

Preserve wildlife, CB landscape/AONB/Conserv. Area/Green spaces

Off road parking (eg double garages)

Sympathetic character/minimal visual impact/enhances

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

5

6

9

19

52

Q3:What is the most important thing for you that a new development should consider?

Number of respondents mentioning

Traditional Dorset style 1

Effects on village Street 2

Landscaping with trees/green spaces - wellbeing 2

OTHER MENTIONS

Housing location and density

OTHER MENTIONS

Integrated with village

Avoid arterial sprawl (eg village entry, future infill)

Restrict increase in houses/no need

Easy access/close to facilities

Impact on neighbours/standard of life/privacy

(Medium/low) density in keeping with village

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

3

4

6

8

9

12



Good planning 1

Limit to 70 new residents 1

Reasonable/good garden sizes 2

Consistent scale with local facilities 2

Appropriate housing type

OTHER MENTIONS

No second homes/homes to let

Based on local needs (not the developer's)

Housing for young people (starter homes)

Housing for local people/not to be sold for 5+ years

Mixed demographic (on same site)

Variety of housing types/sizes/prices

Affordable housing (eg for rent/locals/first time buyers)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

3

4

5

5

8

10

40


Number of respondents mentioningShared ownership instead of council rented 1

Social housing 1

Housing/activities for older people 2

Check what local demand for housing exists 2

Luxury houses not needed/justified 2

Supporting services and infrastructure

OTHER MENTIONS

Sustainability/potential employment

Surface water drainage/sewerage

Good infrastructure/minimise infrastructure strain

Adequate medical facilities/Doctor's surgery

Viability of community facilities/don't overload

Local services (e.g shop, restaurants, parks, school, medical, transport)

Road safety/traffic/road width

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3

4

8

8

18

22

38



Mobile phone connection 1

Support existing business + employment 2

Community aspirations

Avoid dividing the village yet further

Benefit to Catherines Well

Maintain MA ethos/dynamics

Activities for kids/younger people

Include Village Hall/village hub

Section 106 contribution/developer to contribute to services/community gain

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

1

1

1

1

2

4



Your views on the Parish Council land and the developer’s land

Developer land No

PC land No

Developer Land

PC Land

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

56

29

36

80

44

31

Q2a: Do you think either of the sites shown in blue are good locations for development?

NoYes ifYes

Number of respondents

(=57%)

(=79%)

Reason for saying ‘Yes’ to development of the Parish Council land

More houses for local families

Easy/fulfils our gov. obligations/least impact

Good access to road

Provides PC funds/benefit to village

Close to existing facilities

Already earmarked/PC owned/control

Integrated with the village/min. visual impact

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3

3

6

9

16

20

36

Q2a: PC land yes (base 80)

Number of respondentsNeed price range for houses 1

Rebuild surgery, then contain expansion 1

Allotments can be relocated 1

Minimal impact on Conservation Area 1

Should have happened already 1

Low concentration of housing 2

OTHER MENTIONS

Reason for saying ‘No’ to development of the Parish Council land

OTHER MENTIONS

Too close to my house

Access to dog walking

CB landscape encroachment/houses too visible

Keep for better community use

Over development of existing area/enough already

Access/parking/traffic issues

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2

2

3

4

4

11

Q2a: PC land no (base 29)


Needed for Street Fair parking 1

PC purchased land not to be developed 1

More commuter traffic will affect village street 1

Reason for saying ‘Yes if’ to development of the Parish Council land

OTHER MENTIONS (all x1)Consider other sites to spread impact; Opportunity for local control; Opportunity to develop surgery; Lighting - not too prominent; If Developer land not selected; Quality energy efficient local design & materials; Allotments protected; Small close like Damer's Close; Only a few houses with a green; Includes 20%+ affordable for under 35s; Abuts on to present development; It helps restrict development to existing roads; Sufficient infrastructure put in place; Social housing only; Developed for community benefit+additional land

Minimise impact on current houses

Integrated with village

Minimise impact on local views

Minimise traffic impact

Houses are put on both sites

Affordable housing (for locals)

Well planned access

Sufficient (off-road) parking

Reflect character of area

Low/existing density/few houses

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2

3

3

3

3

4

5

5

5

10

Q2a: PC land Yes if (base 31)


Reason for saying ‘Yes’ to Developer land

OTHER MENTIONS

More houses for local families

Low visual impact/away from the CB landscape

Suitable infill site with least resident and visual impact

Plenty of space/best site/less building noise

Close to existing facilities

Road access to Blandford/Dorchester

Integrated with the village/continuation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2

3

3

4

7

9

9

Q2a: Developer land Yes (base 36)


Houses needed 1

Need more families to sustain village 1

Reason for saying ‘No’ to Developer land

OTHER MENTIONSx1: Residents crossing road to surgery; Visitor approach via housing estate; Too much disruption; No services = unnecessary luxury homes; Loss of agricultural land; Protect hedgerow; More commuter traffic will affect village street; Too close to my house; x2: Negative environmental impact; Enough building already in this area

Outside village boundary/greenfield/stretches village

Separation from rest of village/not infill

Drainage/sewerage

Landscape impact/Too close to woodland/Manor

Impact on existing homes/quality of life

Highly visible/high visual impact

Too large (for MA infrastructure/facilities/cohesion)/town people

Access/traffic/road safety issues

0 5 10 15 20 25

3

3

3

4

5

6

12

22

Q2a: Developer land No (base 56)


Reason for saying ‘Yes if’ to Developer land

OTHER MENTIONSx1: Houses not too near to road; Quality energy efficient local design & materials; Limit building up to 2030, Sufficient affordable housing+shared ownership homes; Mix of starter homes and bungalows; Trees and shrubs planted each end; Include first time buyer properties; Time limit on planning permission; It helps restrict development to existing roads; Minimise impact on current houses.X2: Environment/hedges protected; The PC land is rejected/develop PC land first; Minimise traffic impact; Houses are put on both sites; Abuts on to present development; Includes (20%+) affordable (for under 35s)

Reflect character of area

Sufficient (off road) parking

Minimise impact on woodland/local views/properties/fire risk

Well planned road access

Supporting infrastrucure /facilities/ transport

Sympathetic/enhances appearance/eg Tolpuddle

Traffic/road safety issues addressed

Only along the road frontage/field boundary

Part develop/low housing number/<25; 40-50

Low/existing density

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

3

4

4

6

6

8

8

9

9

12

Q2a: Developer land Yes if (base 44)


Your views on the Parish Council land and the developer’s land

Developer land No

PC land No

Developer Land

PC Land

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

56

29

36

80

44

31

Q2a: Do you think either of the sites shown in blue are good locations for development?

NoYes ifYes


(=57%)

(=79%)

Where you support building new homes

Field 7

Field 4

Field 14

Field 15

Field 3

Field 1

Field 2

Field 10

Field 17

Field 5

Field 12

Field 13

Field 16

Field 9

Field 6

Field 11

Field 8

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

2%

3%

3%

4%

5%

5%

5%

6%

6%

7%

7%

8%

9%

10%

14%

42%

62%

Q2b: Shade within the grey and blue field boundaries where you support building new homes

% of respondents shading each field

Where you support building new homes Heat map showing where new homes are supported with field numbers.

Q.4: Is there anything else you wish to mention?

NB these scores (covering 50 subject areas) mirror the Q3 main themes. The top ten were:

Focus on layout, traffic, parking etc (19)

Focus on appropriate/(matching/enhancing) style/village character (14)

Improve public transport/need bus service (12)

Traffic calming/speed limits/road pressure (11)

Need medical services/expand (9)

Focus on appropriate facilities/infrastructure (8)

Conserve landscape/nature should take precedent (6)

No school currently/discourages younger families (6)

Low volume of housing (<60-100)/no overdevelopment (6)

Affordable houses for locals first time buyers (6)

Q.4: Is there anything else you wish to mention?

There were also many Q.4 comments relating to the NDP process itself:

Decide on facts not opinion

Consult landowners early on

Start/fit with housing needs

MA School to provide land/houses or remove from calcs.)

Investigate Council housing waiting list

Consider AONB/settlement boundary etc

Consult Statutory bodies

Questionnaire biased

PC to challenge MA's "larger village" categorisation

Difficult to gauge housing requirement

Developer must not promise low cost housing, then renege

Dorset needs more housing for all and MA has room

Houses may not sell well

Question 1 should have had "Zero" houses option

NDP should have been completed by now

PC to listen to village, not outsiders

Consider parish sites outside the village

No permission yet from landowners re grey areas on the map?

Current Stage and subgroups

September 2018

Outcomes of engagement inform areas of the plan to develop

Appropriate design and style

Housing location and density

Appropriate housing types

Supporting services and infrastructure

Community aspirations

Neighborhood Development PlanKey Stages

Where we are now:

Preparing the Plan

Drafting objectives

Ensuring appropriate evidence

Drafting policies

Once there is a draft plan, it must be subjected to pre-submission 6 week consultation

Subgroups for creating draft sections

Appropriate design and styleEllie Payne & Susan Woodhouse

Housing location and densityGavin Brindle, Pete Litchfield, Michael Moorsom, Susan Woodhouse

Appropriate housing typesRowan Woodhouse, Colin Joyce

Supporting services and infrastructureJames Bickerton, Sam Holland

Community aspirationsBob Pay, Jennifer Harrison

Thank You

update and consultation feedback - wordpress-138321-400696...

Documents