Public meeting 15 Sep 2006 - Notes

This is a summary of the Chairman's opening points at the public meeting on 15 September 2006.

Purpose

The purpose of the meeting is to give background and recommendations, to give residents an opportunity to express their views and preferences and outline their reasons which can then be discussed and then to agree the way forward

Tonight we aim to cover the following points:

• some additional background about policies for development - whether affordable or otherwise - because that affects the choices we have
• outline of other villages experiences with affordable housing
• review of possible sites within Barton Stacey
• reasons for the preferred site
• an open discussion of all these points
• a vote on the key points

Attendees

The Chairman introduced the parish council - all members were present - and the parish clerk.

The Chairman introduced two special attendees:

• John Lancaster from Community Action Hampshire - he is a Rural Housing Enabler who liaises between parish, borough, developer, and other parties involved, and
• Tom Dixon from Hyde Housing, the chosen developers for Affordable Housing in Test Valley

saying:

• they have extensive experience of successful affordable housing schemes
• they have been involved in the process at Barton Stacey
• they will be able to give their views on both the specifics of Barton Stacey and some of the wider issues if required

Background

Requirements for Affordable Housing established in 2003 from a survey of all people in village. This showed a need for 8 affordable houses

Details of the council's work since then was set out in the information pack which was made available in the Village Shop.

Policies

Development principles are defined by TVBC in 10-year cycles and published in borough plan. The latest borough plan was established in June this year. Development is not permitted unless in accordance with plan.

There are no areas scheduled for development around Barton Stacey in this 10 year plan, so any development would need to be justified as a special case.

Two key development policies which are relevant to these special cases for Barton Stacey:

Other villages locally

Some work on affordable housing developments locally:

• Sutton Scotney - (which is within the City of Winchester) has had a lot of development in recent years - and will be getting more when Taylor's Yard is developed. Because of the local authority requirements for mixed development, there is more Affordable Housing in Sutton Scotney than is needed for those who live in the parish itself.
• Micheldever - has had a programme of development involving the parish council and Hyde Housing - and which has been working well. We have discussed with them how to make sure that local people are the first choice and have picked up a number of good ideas which we will consider.
• Wellow - another village where Hyde Housing have been involved and which is working well. I am sure Hyde Housing will give us more information on this later.

Sites

The council has already looked at four sites which would be eligible for rural exception status and has selected a preferred site which is its recommendation to the village - more about these later.

Some people asked whether Wade's Farm and The Green in Roberts Road would be suitable, and the council have looked into this.

The Green

This is designated as a green space for Roberts Road and cannot be developed.

Wades Farm Yard

Wades Farm Yard is not a green field site, since it is not undeveloped farmland, nor is it a brown field site, since it has not been developed for residential or industrial usage. It is a working farm, which is a separate category.

There are approximately 2½ acres (one hectare) of farmyard. The current planning policies require between 13 and 16 houses per acre, which would give a maximum of 40 houses, which could include our 8 Affordable Houses.

The Trustees of the Middleton Estate have not agreed to the development of Wades Farm Yard - their considerations are at a very early stage and, in any case, they have only agreed to investigate the possibility of development.

If Wades Farm were to be developed - and that's a big if as explained below - Middleton are most likely to want to get the most out of it. Accordingly, they would, we presume, aim for the maximum occupancy possible - the 40 houses mentioned above.

So while we might want Wades Farm to be the site for our 8 affordable houses, it's not certain that we want to have another 32 alongside them which Middleton have stated they would, if financially feasible, make available for rent - not for sale.

Furthermore, in order to get planning permission for a development of that size in Barton Stacey, the developer would need to use the "sustainability" special case and show that unless more houses were built, the village would deteriorate eg the Shop and Post Office and Pub would close without more trade, or the School and Playschool needed extra pupils to continue.

It would be difficult to show that the shop/pub/school/playgroup needed trade or pupils. Our school is nearly at capacity and the playgroup is well attended already. Our village pub and shop also appear to be doing well.

If permission were sought for Wades Farm Yard to be developed TVBC planners might well decide that (a) it was not a suitable site, and (b) the maximum of 40 houses that could be built there were not enough to sustain our facilities, and then, as a result, they might allow a much larger development on Defence Estate land in the village.

The Parish Council and parishioners, having robustly objected not many years ago to 60 houses being built in Barton Stacey on the field of Site 2A, might then find that they have lost control of development around Barton Stacey. A Planning Officer has already mentioned that Defence Estates were always ‘sniffing around’.

Also, the essential workers housing, separate from the Affordable Housing, which would have to be built as part of any development, would be made available for people from the whole of Test Valley borough, without any certainty of preference for people from Barton Stacey.

In summary, while Wades Farm seems an attractive location for our 8 Affordable Houses, it would bring a whole lot more with it, we couldn’t be sure that it would benefit Barton Stacey residents and, even if it proved possible, which under current planning policies, is doubtful, it would take a long time to arrive.

Preferred site

The council has looked at four potential sites - all owned by the MoD and managed by Defence Estates - and all categorised as countryside in the borough plan. Accordingly, whichever site we select, no further development would be permitted on that site unless it met either the "sustainability" criteria or the "affordable housing exception".

After lengthy discussions with Defence Estates and the MoD we were informed they would not sell our initial preferred Site marked 1 on the map. The council therefore, after further discussion and walking the sites, selected another preferred site - Site 2A.

The benefits of using Site 2A are:

• It would be just for the 8 houses we want - not part of a larger development
• It is protected from further development - since it is "rural exception" status
• The owner is willing to sell it now
• The price is reasonable
• Work could start soon
• Preference would be given to people from Barton Stacey

The down side of using this site are:

• It is an intrusion into an otherwise undeveloped area - although this is also true of all the countryside sites.

Recommendation

The council recommends to the parish that we should move ahead with site 2A.

To ensure that we can actually get our affordable housing, we need to move ahead without delay. The funding for affordable housing is allocated in two year periods, and we are already six months into the current period. We have funding approved, but if we delay - say to wait for Middleton to decide what they want to do and to get round to doing it - the funding will be given to another village and we would need to reapply again in the future, and it is not certain that we would get it.