Response to site assessment and allocation from Bramley Parish Council.

User Rating:  / 0

Parent Category: Planning and Development

Category: BDBC Local Plan

Last Updated on Saturday, 20 April 2013 13:49

Published on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 09:34

Written by Parish Clerk

Hits: 5031

Response to site assessment and allocation from Bramley Parish Council. 

Sites considered are: BRAM010, BRAM005, BRAM007, BAS107, BAS122, BAS139 

Published by Bramley Parish Council January 2013  

Introduction 

Bramley Parish Council consider it necessary to submit the following document to P&I committee and cabinet members in order to articulate its concerns regarding the site assessment and allocation proposals. We seek through both this document and representation at the meeting on the 17th  answers to questions concerning the allocation of development sites and housing numbers to Bramley Parish.            

Distinction between BRAM and BAS sites.

We have been advised by our Borough Councillors that the distinction is drawn as the BAS sites are considered as strategic development sites for North Basingstoke and although within the current Bramley Parish boundary they are in fact not considered as Bramley sites. We Parish Council find this unacceptable, and thus feel that we must support our whole Parish Community and continue to register our assessment of the appropriateness of these three (BAS107,122,139) allocated sites.  

Calculation of development targets. 

We believe that the new Borough target of 770 units per annum is back dated to 2011, thus the under achievement in 2011 to 2013 will be added to the future years. This will result in the future target for an unknown period being in excess of 770 units. We also understand that the over achievement prior to 2010/11 is excluded from the calculation. This is something of a “having ones cake and eating it” situation - is it not? From Bramley’s perspective a significant element of the Borough’s over achievement to 2009 came from the German Road development (271 units of which 47.0% were social/affordable housing).  I believe that it is well known that residents, Parish, Borough and County objected to this development but Ministers of the former Government were “minded” to approve.  Given Bramley’s expansion rate since 1981 a compound annual expansion rate of 4.5 times versus the rest of the Borough achieving only 1.5 times (without any improvement in transport and social amenity infrastructure), do not the Committee members feel that Bramley, now having a proposed 200 units adjacent to the current settlement boundary plus the 1310 units in the south of the Parish, is continuing to shoulder an unsustainable and inappropriate portion of the Borough targets? 

We liken the current approach to expansion to that of Bank and phone company offers to new customers, that is they get a great deal and the existing customers pay for it. In the case of Bramley it is the existing resident’s quality of life on all levels that pays the price.    

Does Bramley see it as inevitable that development will happen in the south of the Parish and also an expansion of the settlement boundary around the village itself? 

Yes!

Is Bramley Parish saying no to every development? 

No! 

What we are asking is that the reality of recent expansion be taken into account and that Bramley be given a respite from development. We ask that in addition commitments are undertaken, by the Borough and County to improve the adverse impacts of earlier development on Bramley’s infrastructure and population demographics. I ask you. Is that an unreasonable request?  

Bramley wants time to develop its Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) so we can participate fully in the quality and impact of future development.  Can we have that time and how much? 

We have 200 units allocated adjacent to the settlement boundary and two CAT 1 sites. What happens if both put in a “premature” application (as with Razors Farm)? What happens if our NDP identifies one site versus the other and the other one also puts in an application? 

Given the above Bramley asks that development be scheduled towards the end of the LDF timescale rather than as soon as…. 

What does the Bramley Parish Council believe regarding development?  

Bramley’s rural nature and views to the north, particularly those protected views adjacent to the Bramley Green conservation area must be protected and preserved. 

Bramley needs to create a functioning “centre” with parking and facilities for its current and future population before more people and more traffic are imposed upon the current inadequate structure.  

Development of any of the sites allocated within the Parish will bring more frustration to those currently living in and traversing the Parish as traffic increases on the C32 and surrounding rural and poorly maintained minor roads. Healthcare and education facilities are stretched and the youth of the Parish have no facilities. 

As is argued within your document (Appendix C page 103 of 172) development of BAS107 – Razors Farm will be the key that unlocks development of BAS122 and  BAS139 (Appendix page 144 of 172). We find this 1310 dwelling development site to be wholly inappropriate to the location.  

Bramley’s railway access is NOT the positive factor that those involved in site assessment and allocating believe it to be. It attracts traffic from many surrounding villages resulting in congestion and parking issues for residents.    

The Borough’s own unemployment statistics show a significant rise in Bramley’s registered unemployed figures at the same time there has been no investment in employment in the local area with the exception of the care Home along German Road.  Will more development and social/affordable housing improve this picture or make it worse? What will the Borough Council be doing to help create work and an appropriate /affordable transport system to get people from the rural areas to the places of work? The allocation of Razors Farm to housing rather than an industrial/commercial site will surely exacerbate this problem. 

The assessments contained within appendix C of the document highlight many difficulties with development of these sites yet they appear not to influence the conclusions regards suitability. For example: Isolation, flooding, proximity to conservation areas, existing good quality agricultural land, loss of strategic gaps, inadequate social and structural infrastructure, loss of greenfield sites.

Phases such “could be mitigated”; “linked….other sites in the plan” offer only subjective assessment rather than acknowledging existing and tangible negatives. A “neutral score” appears to be taken as a positive to develop rather than a positive to non- development. 

The development of the Manydown site is too slow and too little and coupled with an increased target the pressure remains exactly as was on the rural environs. 

The current process of considering housing development in isolation and denying or trivialising transportation, employment and amenities issues does not create appropriate and sustainable communities whose quality of life is improved.  

Bramley compares very closely with both Whitchurch and Overton in terms of population, railway station however it has poorer access and less amenities yet Bramley Parish expansion both historic and planned is far greater.  Why?  

Sites assessed along the A33 to the South (Loddon Valley) of Sherfield and Bramley will also result in more traffic on the C32 and surrounding rural roads. Denial of issues is creating the opportunity for development.  

To justify future inappropriate development as a consequence of earlier inappropriate development is not what we believe our Borough Council wants to be remembered for and is certainly not what our residents want.  

Bramley Parish Council, being the lead on the NDP for the Parish would like it to be confirmed that taking on 200 houses within Bramley, not counting the designated BAS sites down Cufaude Lane, that an 18mth timescale to form a NDP is within your timescale to allow the Community of Bramley Parish to decide the shape and design of the allocated expansion and the improved infrastructure that will go with it.

That being the case, The NDP will be followed through with enthusiasm in the knowledge that the residents of Bramley are having a say in its future, where they want to live and have a good quality of life.   

Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) 

Bramley Parish Council believe that to mitigate, at least in part, the negative impacts of inappropriate development a NDP must be created and thus an application has been registered.  This submission considers those elements, related to Bramley sites, contained within the latest version of the SHLAA that would impact the creation of an appropriate and achievable NDP.   

Overview The Officers recommend that Basingstoke be the focus of the programme with a spread of developments to larger settlements in the Borough, Bramley being one of those settlements. The issue facing Bramley is that there have been high levels of housing developments without any improvements in the infrastructure. Bramley suffers considerably with traffic problems and there has not been any significant improvement in the infrastructure schooling, shops, and recreational facilities for some time.   The allocation of 200 houses to Bramley from 5-15 years is reasonable provided that it can be achieved with “bottom up planning” by the local community through the Neighbourhood Plan, which has been recently instigated by the Parish Council (6.20 page 66 of 172). 

However the choice of Bramley as a development site is based around the supposed employment opportunities and accessibility in Bramley, all of which are currently deficient. Recent expansion has significantly altered the population demographics and further development will exacerbate a very real problem.  Currently development demonstrates that economic and profitable (for the developer) construction in support of the affordable/social percentage build results in blocks of such housing rather than spread throughout the development.  Bramley’s unemployment increase is not coincidental but rather is directly linked to inappropriate development Bramley PC cannot, in the whole report, ignore BAS 107, Razor’s Farm (420 houses), BAS 122Cufaude Farm (390 House) and BAS 139 West of Cufaude Farm (500 houses) which fall within the Parish Boundary but are designated BAS because it is envisaged that access to these sites will be from the South, a complete misconception (Section 6.11).

Paragraph 6.13 of the report says that the view of the officers is that development to the West and South West is preferable to larger scale developments to the North and North- East. Bramley is North/North-East! The West and SW includes BAS 098 (Manydown 1, 2, 6 sections initially plus 3 and 4 parcels), BAS 114 (Kennel Farm) and BAS 132 (Basingstoke Golf) plus BAS 133(Hounsome Fields which amount to 6300 houses. The North and North-East includes SOL002 (Redlands), BAS024 (Swing Swang Lane), BAS 104, (North Popley), BAS 121(East Basingstoke), BAS 107(Razor’s Farm), BAS 122 (Cufaude Farm) with BAS 139(West Cufaude) amounting to 3210 houses.  Confusion also reigns as to statement within the report by Officers that development to the West and South West is preferable to the North and North East. The report allocates sites in the Sth and Sth West with 6300 houses and gives 3200 to the Nth and Nth East which includes the finger, isolated sites adjacent to Cufaude Lane. That is 33.75% of the total allocation, the three BAS sites within Bramley Parish being 40.8% of the Nth Nth East allocation. The allocation is greater to the Sth. We ask why this is not even greater when there are Cat 1 sites within those areas? In addition the officers are reporting that Cufaude Farm and West Cufaude are ISOLATED SITES without the development of Razor’s Farm that will give access through that development to these sites.  Access to 890 houses through a development of 420 houses is definitely not going to be in keeping with the vision of 2026, which states that “Communities will be enjoying an excellent Quality of Life and Environment which has been improved through well planned Growth. “They will be inviting places where people want to live and be safe” that is a very subjective assessment upon which to justify development. With a potential for 1335 cars passing your doorstep on a daily basis working on the basis of 1.5 cars per household, we question that logic? 

Bramley specifics The Analysis for BRAMLEY, 6.15-6.21 is reasonable except again it highlights the Local Facilities Bramley Primary School (Presently FULL), a local ONE Stop shop(On the High Street C32 with parking for 3 cars) and a Bakery (Adjacent to the railway with limited parking), a village hall that does not meet our present needs and is under review, and the railway station is continually highlighted as a benefit and justification for development which, in fact,  at present causes car parking and traffic flow problems within the village. The railway station is as much if not more an inhibitor to development rather than a positive. People using the station are coming from the surrounding areas, including Sherfield and Chineham using cars as their means of transport to the station. A recent survey indicated that at present on average 73 cars are parked during the day in close proximity to the station. The car park takes 23 cars which mean that 50 cars on average are parked on surrounding roads causing frustration and on occasion conflict for residents and danger on the roads. The close proximity to the school creates danger for children. A recent agreement (January 2013) between The Borough and Parish Councils to introduce parking restrictions around the station will make the problem worse.  Future development must contain increased parking facilities in close proximity to the station. The consequence is 68% of cars of commuters are parked on Bramley Roads in close proximity to the station and school routes. People do not walk if they have a car; they go to the shop and park on the main C32 and to the Bakery as well as going through the village to surrounding areas, mainly Basingstoke for services. The NDP, developers and Borough/County authorities must work to address these problems. 

A joined up plan is required to resolve issues and create appropriate and sustainable expansion.  The current process of looking at each element of the equation in isolation does not work. Having BAS 107, BAS122 and BAS139 within Bramley Parish with access via Cufaude Lane to Bramley Centre via car is of considerable concern. The write-up on BAS139 says there will be access via Cufaude Lane North. THIS IS A NARROW COUNTRY LANE WITH PASSING POINTS FOR CARS and it connects Razor’s Farm to Bramley. Cars will be driven on the shortest route, they will not go south through the industrial estate to the A33 and then up North on the A33. They will either go through Sherfield Park and Taylors Farm to the A33 to go up north (disturbing to Residents of those estates), or up Cufaude Lane to connect to the C32 and A33 through Bramley and Sherfield, or go left on the C32 from Cufaude Lane to the Tadley Road. The impact of these developments on the Local Road Networks will result in frustration, anger, potential for more accidents and overall a negative on the quality of life for existing residents. Working on 1.5 cars per household, Razor’s Farm will generate 600 more cars, Cufaude Farm 585 more cars. Unless traffic restrictions are enforced on the usage of Cufaude Lane and the cut through to the A33 via Sherfield Park and Taylors Farm Bramley’s problems will increase. The assessment makes little or no reference to these very real issues and assumes that human nature will alter to justify such development.  Such restrictions would make the absorption of 200 homes easier to manage via an NDP.   Any expansion in the population of Bramley Village and surrounding Parish will exacerbate current problems and thus the NDP/Borough plans must address these issues.       

Conclusion 

Bramley Parish Council understands that it must contribute to the solution of compliance with the expansion demands placed on the Borough. 

It welcomes an allocation of an expansion number to the village rather than a site selection. This approach will allow the Neighbourhood Development Plan process to be utilised to good effect for the community. It asks for sufficient time to develop and legalise this plan before any development is considered adjacent to the current settlement boundary. 

It finds the denial of the impact on the whole Parish and its road network created by the development of the Cufaude Lane (BAS 107,122,139) sites to be unworthy of a robust and considered planning process and thus requests that development in the South-west corner of the Parish be limited with northbound traffic flow restricted so as avoid further encroachment into the Parish and better manage traffic north towards C32 and Bramley centre.