NDP Consultation – first draft

First stab at NDP Consultation Document

Note for the Parish Council. This is the very first draft of a document setting out the issues, choices and possible policies and proposals for the NDP which will be the basis of widespread consultation with residents in the Spring, hopefully. At this stage the focus for discussion is whether it covers the right issues, choices and possible policies and these are in bold text . The drafting can doubtless be improved, and there are gasps in the text. We will be seeking professional advice on the practicality of the possible policies.

The eventual document should be much shorter but for the present we believe it is helpful to include the material in the three appendices and other information in the body of the document.

Introduction

Background and Brief description of the Parish

[Text to be drafted and to cover

  • location;
  • population;
  • main communities and their history]

About Neighbourhood Development Plans

The Localism Act 2011 gives Parish Councils the power to prepare a statutory Neighbourhood Development Plan. Such a plan will be used to help promote, guide and control development in the local area.

These new powers give local people the opportunity to shape new development, as planning applications are determined in accordance with national planning policy and the local development plan, and Neighbourhood Development Plans form part of this framework

Neighbourhood Development Plans are described in the NPPF as follows 

Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and deliver the sustainable development they need. Parishes and neighbourhood forums can use neighbourhood planning to:

  • set planning policies through neighbourhood plans to determine decisions on

 

               planning applications; and

  • grant planning permission through Neighbourhood Development Orders and

 

             Community Right to Build Orders for specific development which complies with the

             Order; and

Outside these strategic elements, neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and

direct sustainable development in their area. Once a neighbourhood plan has

demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and

is brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non strategic policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict.

Local planning authorities should avoid duplicating planning processes for non strategic policies where a neighbourhood plan is in preparation

 Significantly, paragraph 198 of NPPF states that “where a planning application conflicts with a Neighbourhood Development Plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted

 National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)

The NPPF sets out the national planning framework for England and the NDP must conform with it. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute towards sustainable development and to perform an economic, social and environmental role.

Paragraph 7 of the NPPF states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and identifies the essential features of these. Of particular relevance to Tanworth are:

Support a prosperous rural economy

  • Promote sustainable transport
  • Support high quality communications infrastructure
  • Deliver a wide choice of high quality homes
  • Require Good Design
  • Protect green belt land
  • Conserve and enhancing the natural environment; and
  • Conserve and enhancing the historic environment

The Green Belt policy is crucial to the Tanworth NDP because the whole of the parish is included in the West Midlands Green Belt. The fundamental aim of the Green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land open. The construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the green belt except in very special circumstances. Para 89 of the NPPF sets out the exceptions to this

  • Buildings in agriculture and forestry
  • The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building
  • The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the original
  • Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan
  • Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings) which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

The Government is currently consulting on changes to the NPPF and some affect the above. In particular, the Government’s consultation paper states “We consider that the current policy may hinder locally- led housing development and propose to amend national planning policy so that Neighbourhood Plans can allocate appropriate small scale sites in the Green Belt specifically for starter homes, with neighbourhood areas having the discretion to determine the scope of a small scale site.” The Government is also considering making it easier to secure starter homes on brownfield sites in the Green Belt.

Stratford Council’s Core Strategy

The District Council’s development plan is the Core Strategy. Although not yet finalised we expect it to be adopted soon and we do not expect the policies in the current draft that are relevant to the neighbourhood Plan to change, other than those needed if the NPPF is amended on the lines explained above.

A key element of the Strategy is the identification of what are called Local service Villages (CS 15 and 16). There are three of these in the Parish: Tanworth, Earlswood and Wood End. For SLVs outside the Green Belt the Strategy sets out some broad figures for the expected number of new homes over the Plan period but there are no figures for those in the Green Belt and the Strategy emphasises that Green belt policies will apply – namely the restriction of development to limited infilling in villages; local needs schemes and brownfield sites.

Other policies relevant to the Plan are

Policy CS 17 Affordable Housing . All sites providing between 5 and 9 homes or more homes will be required to make a financial contribution to the Council for the provision of affordable housing . On sites of 10 or more new homes 35% will need to be affordable. Affordable housing is defined as social rented; affordable rented and intermediate housing. The policy reflects the provisions of the NPPF and is aimed at ensuring cohesive and stable communities and meeting the needs of those who cannot afford local house prices and market rents.

Policy CS 18 Housing Mix and Type. The Strategy refers to balanced and sustainable communities needing a mix of housing in terms of type, tenure and size.

Policy CS.5 Landscape – the Strategy aims to minimize and mitigate the impact of any development on the character and quality of the landscape of the District, including the likely visual impact of any development. Protection is also afforded to ancient semi-natural woodland and aged/veteran trees, especially in the Forest of Arden area.

Policy CS.6 Natural Environment–The strategy aims to provide ecological security for wildlife, people, the economy and tourism. This will be done by protecting sites of environmental, nature conservation and geological importance (as identified by Warwickshire County Council as designated sites and priority habitats listed in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan) from harmful development. Where development is permitted it will be expected to make a positive contribution to a resilient ecological network and increased biodiversity.

Policy CS.8 Historic Environment – the Strategy sets out to protect and enhance a wide range of the District’s historic and cultural assets in order to preserve the historic environment for the enjoyment of present and future residents and visitors. This includes farmbuildings.

Policy CS.9 Design and Distinctiveness – The design of any new development will be required to enhance the sense of place and reflect the distinctiveness of the neighbourhood to improve the quality of the local environment. Any development will need to be attractive, sensitive, distinctive, connected, environmentally sustainable, accessible, safe and healthy.

Purpose of the Plan for Tanworth Parish

The purpose of the Neighbourhood Plan is not to duplicate the planning framework

developed by Stratford District Council, but to:

Refine and clarify how Stratford District Council’s planning policies should

  • be applied to development proposals on sites in the Parish
  • Set out specific development objectives for certain defined areas within the
  • Parish.
  • Document a number of aspirations that are intended to help determine the
  • suitability of possible future development proposals.
  • Set out local design principles for new development.
  • Set out a small number of policies that should be considered in relation to
  • specific types of development that may be proposed in the Parish.

As an area wholly in the Green Belt, there is a presumption against inappropriate

development, unless very special circumstances apply. This stance is supported

strongly by the Parish Council and residents. However, it is important that the NDP is not seen only as a vehicle for avoiding change but it should also promote a positive approach to the future. From time to time, there will be development opportunities, consistent with Green Belt policies, and it is important that the Neighbourhood Plan is able to guide such development.

This Neighbourhood Plan sets out a planning framework for Tanworth Parish up to 2031, to help ensure that the distinctive character of the Parish is maintained and enhanced for future residents to enjoy.

Process for Preparing the Plan

 In March 2014 the Parish Council applied to the Stratford District Council for the Parish to be designated a Neighbourhood Development Plan Area and this was agreed in October 2014.

The Parish Council established a Steering Group, as a Committee of the parish council, comprising residents and Councillors, to prepare the Plan

During 2015 the main areas of work have been:

(a) A Questionnaire Survey of Residents.

A questionnaire was delivered to every resident in the Parish . The results are summarised in Appendix A

(b) A Survey of known businesses and employers in the Parish

A questionnaire was sent to all businesses on the District Council’s rating lists plus any other employers/businesses known to us. The results are summarised in Appendix 2

(c) An Assessment of the environmental character of the parish.

Following a Historic England sponsored workshop in April 2015, we undertook character assessments of the three SLVs, the main hamlets and the surrounding landscapes

Each of the areas was surveyed comparing modern day and 100 year old maps and the following features were noted on maps of the area:

  1. Distinctive planted boundaries (i.e. hedgerow), woodland, lines of trees and landmark and/or historic trees or planting.
  2. Locally significant watercourses, distinctive bodies of water (i.e. ponds), landmarks (i.e. churches, bridges, etc.), heritage assets, routeways, views, open or green spaces, areas with a distinctive sense of enclosure/open character and boundaries between character zones
  3. Locally significant and distinctive buildings, groups of related historic buildings, the scale of buildings (i.e. number of storeys), distinctive frontages, roof-lines, building lines and street furniture, ornamental or commemorative features and distinctive structural boundaries (i.e. walls)
  4. Evaluation of the surrounding countryside.The findings will be summarized and used to provide a character assessment of each of the 3 LSVs within the Parish and will inform the policies included in the NDP which relate to the landscape and environment.
  5.  

(d) Analysis of changes and trends over last 20/25 years from the 1991, 2001 and 2011 Censuses and from District Council records

Next Steps after this Consultation

The results of this consultation will be considered very carefully and used to finalise the Neighbourhood Development Plan. A Consultation Statement will be published alongside the Plan setting out how the representations received have been considered and used to influence and inform the content of the Plan.

The Neighbourhood Development Plan, together with all supporting documentation, will be submitted to Stratford on Avon District Council. Following this, the Plan will be subjected to an Independent Examination by a jointly appointed Examiner, to consider whether the Plan meets the basic conditions, and is consistent with national and local (the Core Strategy) policies and also any outstanding objections.

If the Examiner recommends changes, these will need to be considered before the Plan is subjected to a local Referendum. A straight majority vote (50% of turnout +1) of those on the Electoral Register will be required, before the District Council may “make” the Plan. The Neighbourhood Development Plan will then be used to help determine planning decisions in the Parish. [Other NDPs have incorporated a diagram to better illustrate process of consultation]

 The Issues

At the start of the process the Parish Council prepared Terms of reference for the Steering Group which set out a number of issues which the PC felt should be addressed in the Plan. A questionnaire survey of every adult in the Parish identified further issues of concern to residents. The following summarises the issues which the Plan attempts to address.

Settlements and the Green belt

The Parish has two significant and distinct villages with their own characters –Tanworth and Earlswood, separated by the M42 Motorway. The District Council has in addition identified  Wood End as  an SLV-  although it is not a distinct community- rather ribbon development based on a stretch of  Broad Lane and  number of side roads.  In addition there are a number of hamlets and discrete residential dwellings. The Plan needs to guide the application of Green Belt policies in a way which maintains the distinctiveness of the villages and hamlets and prevents further ribbon development or loss of open countryside.

The Mix of Housing and Meeting the Community’s Needs

The area is one of very high house prices in which there are strong incentives to build large homes and replace smaller homes with larger homes.  In 2011 60% of the housing stock had four or more bedrooms – compared to 23% nationally and 37% in the District. The mix of housing stock impacts on the social and age structure of the Parish and in turn this impacts on retaining local services, a high priority for residents, and the vitality of the Parish’s social institutions.  The type and tenure of new housing will be important in meeting the  needs of the community.

Need to protect and enhance the historical heritage

In addition to 100 listed buildings and  2 historical sites which are protected there are other buildings and sites of lesser historical significance, but important to the character of the Parish, which are not protected.

Tanworth Village Centre

Tanworth village centre, to some extent a focal point of the parish, is an important Conservation Area but suffers parking and congestion issues.

Earlswood Lakes

The Lakes are an important leisure facility drawing people from outside the Parish but they are also a fundamental element of the local environment for residents of Earlswood and an important wild life centre. A key issue is therefore how best to manage the conflicts between residents and wider users, and are the lakes being  used to their best advantage?

Business and Employment

The household survey exerted no strong views either for or against support for business in the NDP with one exception – being strongly against the allocating extra land for small scale business development). Many of the wider views provided by households were also shared in the recent business survey –they both saw it as advantageous as being in a countryside setting. They also both saw disadvantages as being predominantly the Broadband and mobile telephony strengths with businesses also expressing some disadvantages from local recruitment and planning policy.

Business generally supported change of use of buildings to facilitate expansion or location of new businesses (77%) and developing brownfield sites (64%) for business use. It is therefore to be decided whether the community, with no strong views on whether to support businesses in the Parish through the NDP, would be prepared to support specific business proposals whilst receiving significant support from business for a number of proposals that benefit both the community and business i.e. the protection of the countryside setting and improved Broadband and mobile telephone reception.

 Traffic Management Issues

The Parish borders Birmingham and Solihull and the eastern and western boundaries of the parish are defined by important routes to Birmingham. The M42 Motorway runs east to west through the heart of the Parish. As a consequence there are significant traffic flows on some residential roads in the Parish.  These are likely to worsen with current and future developments on land around the Parish within Solihull, Redditch, Stratford and Bromsgrove. It will therefore be important to manage future traffic flows and speeds whilst preserving the rural nature of the parish – 77% of respondents viewing the narrow lanes and hedgerows within the Parish as important aspects to living here.

Whilst the majority of people believes that traffic travels too quickly through the parish there was very little support for road changes such as speed bumps, traffic lights or roundabouts that could risk the rural feel of the Parish.

Need to protect and enhance the natural environment

The Parish contains three SSIs which are well protected but there are other sites and features of the natural environment which need protection

Need to protect the countryside and its relationship to the main settlements

The way the countryside interacts with the built up areas is important to residents. There are particularly sensitive areas, including those with significant views. The way in which new development and the redevelopment of existing buildings, including former agricultural buildings,  is carried out can have a big visual impact as evidenced by developments in the last 20 years.

Design of New development

Development should be well designed and “sympathetic” to the character of the local.  We need design policies that are specific to the character of the Parish which can be applied to future development proposals.

Adjoining Areas

There is currently underway or planned significant development of land neighbouring the Parish that is likely to lead to more traffic on the Parish’s roads and infrastructure. It is therefore important that sufficient co-ordination in the planning of that development is undertaken to providing adequate roads and utilities capacity such that it doesn’t have an adverse impact upon the quality of life and the rural nature of the Parish and the road network seen as so important and enjoyed by the local community. 

Possible Policies and proposals 

[ The following is a first attempt at identifying the choices for the NDP and possible policies and proposals]

Housing

Development in last 20 to 25 years

In the 20 years between 1991 and 2011 the stock of dwellings in the Parish increased by around 75 to 1349 in 2011, and approximately 3 or 4 new homes have been built since then.

In the 15 years between 1999 and 2015 planning permission has been granted for the following

  • 30 houses on new sites ( most of these are within or contiguous to the three LSVs; in particular 9 houses behind 103, Malthouse Lane; 4 at Warren farm, Malthouse Lane; and 3 in Doctors Close – under construction)
  • 43 new houses replacing existing houses
  • 23 new houses arising from conversions of existing buildings, mainly redundant farm buildings and therefore outside the LSVs)

In addition, outline permission has recently been granted for up to 18 houses at Cank Farm

Existing Housing stock

In terms of the make up of the housing stock there has been quite a dramatic change as the data from the Censuses shows. Between 1991 and 2011 the stock of dwellings increased by around 75, but the number of dwellings with 7 or more rooms increased by 225; and at the same time there was a loss of approximately 150 smaller homes (5 rooms or less). The reasons for this change include:  

  • Planning permissions for rebuilds (which are always for larger homes);
  • Extensions , often converting a modest family home to a much larger home. In the last 15 years, for example, the Council has granted planning permissions for approximately 100 significant extensions to existing homes; and
  • Most recent planning permissions for new houses have been for 4 or more bedroom houses.

On a number of counts Tanworth is a significant outlier when compared to the District and even more so when compared with England and Wales. In 2011

69% of all homes are detached compared with 37% (Stratford) and 22% (England and Wales)

60% of homes have 7 rooms or more compared to 37%% (Stratford) and 23% (England and Wales)

14% of homes are for rent compared with 26% (Stratford) and 34% (England and Wales)

5.5% of homes are socially rented compared to 12.9% (Stratford) and 18% (England and Wales)

The Core strategy describes house prices in the Stratford District as high and states that there has been a long term shortage of affordable housing. While there is no data specific to the Parish it is safe to assume that house prices are even higher and that homes in the parish are even less affordable. The effect of the above is a housing stock with limited opportunities for younger families to buy homes in the Parish (and even less for those on low incomes) and limited opportunities for older households in the Parish to downsize

Residents ‘ Priorities for new Housing in Terms of Number and Size

In crude number terms the survey suggests that a majority of residents want no more than 35 to 45 new homes over the period to 2031 but the question was asked without providing any context (such as how many had been built in the last 15 years or the make up of the existing stock of homes) and at a time when it was thought that approximately 50 new homes would be imposed on the Parish through the Core Strategy.

As regards the size of any new homes it would seem that residents are aware of the growing imbalance in the structure of the housing stock. They want a mix of family homes (3 bedrooms), starter/small homes and retirement housing (although they are very opposed to flats with only 6% of respondents viewing them as at all suitable). There is little support for larger houses and some critical comment about replacing existing “family homes with mansions”.  Where building was deemed suitable the survey suggested that smaller developments would be most appropriate with significant support for developments of 4 or less houses, an ambivalence to developments of 5-9 houses, and a rejection of developments of 10 or more houses (75% of respondents viewing developments of this size unsuitable)

The survey revealed that 9% of households have a previous member of the household who has left the Parish in the last 5 years because they could not afford a home locally. The survey showed that there are some households (4%) who say they have members of the household who need alternative met housing. But, the survey showed little support from the residents for “affordable housing including social housing”.

At the Examination in Public of the Council’s Core Strategy a number of witnesses argued that maintaining lively and thriving villages depended on maintaining a social balance in terms of income and age, and this is supported by the NPPF and the Core Strategy. The Parish as a whole has an older age profile with only 20% of the population in the age group 20 to 45 compared with 34% in the District as a whole. The Survey showed residents attach importance to retaining facilities such as post offices, shops and other local facilities and arguably these are more at risk with an ageing and static population.

The considerations set out above suggest that the priority for some ( but not all) residents will be that the NDP should provide for some smaller and more affordable housing on small infill developments [This is the view reached by other NDPs in the Green belt (Hampton in Arden; Wilmcote; and Chaddeslet Corbett – in rather stronger terms] If so how might this be achieved within the constraints of Green Belt policies set out in the NPPF. There are three categories of development that are allowed in the Green Belt and the following paragraphs look at each so far as the Parish is concerned.

Possible Sites for “limited infilling”

Limited infilling is appropriate in the Green Belt. There may well be a few single infill plots and there will also be some conversions of unused farm buildings over the next 15 years. Neither of these however are likely to provide opportunities for providing smaller/starter homes.

We have looked at sites, on the edge, or within, the three main settlements of Tanworth, Wood End and Earlswood which have been brought to our attention. We have not looked at the smaller settlements in the Parish because they are arguably not villages in the sense meant by the NPPF, and anyway no sites have been suggested. The sites brought to our attention include those proposed to the District Council as part of its work on the Stratford Housing Land Availability Assessment (the SHLAA 2014); sites previously considered by the Council in connection with the SHLAA 2012; and  two sites identified by the Housing Group. We have considered to what extent any of these can be considered as limited infilling,

There is no definition of limited infilling, but based on the purposes of the Green Belt possible criteria are

    • Is the site within the general built up area of the village
    • Would development damage the openness of the area
    • Would development extend existing linear /ribbon housing development
    • Is the possible development essentially limited in scale. Based on the Council’s officers recommendations on recent applications this could be up to 7 -10 homes.If the priority is for smaller homes a further consideration is whether the site is suitable for smaller homes.
    •  

A first stab at an assessment of each possible site is in Appendix C. The sites considered are identified on the attached maps.

Three sites that could possibly be considered as limited infilling (and and are also suitable for development of smaller homes) are listed below. It must be stressed that none of these are straightforward infilling. Also there are other factors which need to be considered (some of which are mentioned in the Appendix) and which may mean that development of one or more of these sites would not acceptable. At this stage, therefore it must be stressed that at best the three sites can only be described as possible. 

The Government’s proposed changes to its Green Belt policy, as far as starter homes are concerned, may allow other sites to be considered.

The sites are

Butts Lane (between school entrance and existing housing)

Land Adjoining 141 The Common  

Land adjacent to the Reservoir pub  

In addition we have looked at whether there is scope for some backland development which could meet the criteria for limited infilling. The three areas we have looked at are

  1. Behind the houses on the north side of Bates Lane
  2. Behind the houses on both sides of Malthouse Lane and the west side of The Common in all cases backing on to the Lakes.
  3. Land between the houses on the east side of Poolhead Lane and the railway.

In the case of 1. and 3. above the sites are not suitable for smaller homes, having regard to the character of adjoining development. In respect of 2. above proposals in the plan for protecting the Earlswood Lakes would prohibit any development.

Brown field Sites

Development of brownfield sites is appropriate in the Green Belt. A brownfield site is a site which has already been developed (but not land developed for agricultural or forestry purposes) Hitherto the only brownfield sites developed for housing have been within, or on the edge of the three main settlements. Examples include Doctors Close and Earlsmere. There are no more brownfield sites within or on the edge of the three main settlements: Cank farm is the last such site and outline planning permission has been granted.

There may be brownfield sites in areas away from the three main villages but by definition they will currently be used for other purposes and so it is not known whether they are available for housing development.

Local Needs Schemes

Housing development to provide a Local needs Scheme is permitted in the Green Belt and the Core Strategy does not require such schemes necessarily to be located in the SLVs: they can be located in smaller settlements and on green field sites. Local Needs Schemes are only possible if there is evidence of an identified local need for either market housing or affordable housing or both. [Affordable housing is housing provided at a cost below market rates and can be social rented, affordable rented or shared ownership housing.] A local connection is critical in all cases. In the case of market housing the homes can only be bought by someone with a local connection and when sold on the purchaser must also have a local connection.   Affordable housing is managed by a Housing Association and again the tenant or part purchaser (in the case of shared ownership homes) must have a local connection. Examples of completed schemes, include schemes at Norton Lindsey and Claverdon, both in the Green Belt. Surveys ahve been completed recently in Wilmcote. Great Alne and Henley

Because of limited funds for Housing Associations affordable housing is usually only feasible in a mixed development where the market housing financially supports the construction of the affordable housing. For various reasons a viable Local Needs scheme, which includes affordable housing, will have at least 6-8 units

The evidence of a local need must come from a housing needs survey; and the District Council rely on the Warwickshire Rural Community Council for advice on whether there is a local need and for managing the development of such schemes. Our Residents’ Survey covered housing need but it did not identify individuals with a need and information about their households, or their income. Without this information the Warwickshire Rural Community Council cannot confirm that there is a local need .

However, the results of our survey indicate that were we to ask the Warwickshire Rural Community Council to carry out a full Housing Needs Survey it would confirm that there is an identified need. 28 households completed the Annexe to our survey that they needed alternative accommodation. 16 of these are currently living with parents and a further 5 are renting. Most want two bedroom accommodation. All have a local connection and 10 were born in the Parish.

Any of the sites identified above as possible limited infilling could be suitable for a Local Needs Scheme, and there is a fourth site (behind the Warwickshire Lad pub between the railway and Wood End Lane) which could be suitable. We could look elsewhere if we decide to take the idea forward.

Options for the NDP

There are a number of ways the NDP can approach the housing issues discussed above. These depend on views about

  • whether, or not, the NDP should make specific provision for some new housing to meet the needs of younger families and older households wanting to downsize. And, if so, whether this should be through a Local needs scheme(s) or more general policies, or both;
  • minimising any change to the Parish and keeping it just as it is, iplying as little development as possible
  • whether some development is a good thing in maintaining the vitality of the main communities

We welcome views on the choices set out below

  1. Which of the following broad approaches best reflects your views  The site(s) could be limited to Local Needs Scheme(s) , which would have the advantage of providing housing for people with local connections and could include affordable housing or could be left to the market or a mix of the both. In the latter case we would need to be satisfied that the sites identified can be regarded as limited infilling.     2     Regardless of the preferred approach above(b) Because there is a continuous loss of smaller homes as a result of rebuilds and large extensions the NDP should include policies to limit such developments. This may not be straightforward and could be breaking new ground. It would need to recognise statutory permitted development rights.(d) Should any sits identified limit individual developments to 10 dwellings
  2. (c) Should the NDP allow for flats provided they are no more than two stories
  3. (a) Should the NDP include a policy that where possible permission is only granted for smaller homes.
  4.  
  5. This approach might mean 15-20 more new homes than approach (a) above depending on the sites identified
  6. (b) The NDP concludes that there is a case for some new homes and makes some provision for new homes by identifying site(s) for development but with a general policy restriction that permission will only be granted for smaller homes. For each site the plan could be specific about numbers, design and mix of house sizes.
  7. (a) The NDP concludes that there is no need for more homes and that apart from possible single infill plots , conversion of unused farm buildings and proposals for redevelopment of brownfield (should they arise) there are no sites that could be seen as limited infilling and any Local Needs Schemes would not be appropriate. The Plan might include BUABs drawn tightly to strengthening the case planning permission being granted on sites that might be the subject of planning applications in the future. This approach would minimise new development.  Under this approach it would be possible to include a policy that planning permission should only be granted for smaller homes OR
  8.  

Design of New Developments –

  [Explanatory Text to be drafted]

 Policy proposal New development in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan will be permitted where it:

 Is designed to a high quality which responds to the heritage and distinctive character and reflects the identity of the local context by way of:

    1. Height, scale, spacing, layout, orientation, design and materials of buildings
    2. The scale, design and materials of public areas (highways, footpaths, open space and landscape and
  1. Is sympathetic to the setting of any heritage asset and
  2. Follows guidance in the Conservation Area report
  3. Respects the natural contours of a side and protects and sensitively incorporates natural features such as trees, hedges and ponds within the site and
  4. Creates safe, accessible and well-connected environments that meet the needs of users and
  5. Will not result in acceptable levels of light, noise, air or water pollution and
  6. Makes best use of the site to accommodate development

 Protecting Landscape and natural environment

Landscape and historical heritage are the defining features of any area and this is particularly true of the parish of Tanworth-in-Arden with its typical Arden landscape of small scale farms with irregular field patterns, dispersed settlements and an undulating topography characterised by areas of ancient woodland and mature hedgerows with oaks. The objectives of the landscape, historic heritage and environment policies are to ensure that the distinctive rural landscape, settlement pattern, historical assets, natural environment and biodiversity of the Parish are protected and enhanced by the Neighbourhood Development Plan. These policies support the strategic objectives laid down in section 4 of the Core Strategy – District Assets – under the headings of Landscape, Natural Environment, Green Infrastructure, and Historical Environment.

Natural environment

The Parish contains the following designated environmental sites:-

 

SITE NAME

SITE ID

STATUS

GRID REF

CLOWES WOOD & NEW FALLINGS COPPICE

15WAK

SSSI

SP100739

WINDMILL NAPS WOOD

15W1C

SSSI

SP092723

RIVER BLYTHE

15WF5

SSSI

SP111733

 

These sites are of national importance and have a high degree of protection.

They are designated by Natural England and are listed on the DEFRA website.

There are also a number of areas listed as priority habitats in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) which can also be found on this website:-

 

http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic=Designations&activelayer=sssiIndex&query=HYPERLINK%3D%271001494%27

 

SITE NAME

SITE ID

STATUS

GRID REF

Earlswood Lakes

SP17B2

LWS

SP109740

Bissell’s Coppice

SP17G2

LWS

SP122723

Chambers Coppice

SP17G7

LWS

SP125725

Woodside Farm

SP17A4

LWS

SP100701

Old Grove Wood and Acorn Coppice

SP17G5

LWS

SP127731

Jonathans Coppice

SP17G4

LWS

SP129721

Arnolds Wood West

SP17G8

LWS

SP130127

River Alne

SP05LiR1

LWS

SP126649

Park Farm Meadows

SP17A3

LWS

SP101704

Moat House

SP07X1

LWS

SP088743

Clarksland Coppices

SP17B7

LWS

SP117720

 

 

 

 

Poolhead Pastures

SP17B10

pLWS

SP106722

Clowes Wood Field

SP07W2

pLWS

SP094736

Railway

SP16Li12r

pLWS

SP122696

Paddocks Meadows

SP07W3

pLWS

SP081735

Farsham Heath

SP07W1

pLWS

SP089734

Earlswood Moathouse

SP17B9

pLWS

SP117732

Arnolds Wood and Chalcot Wood

SP17G1

pLWS

SP134726

High Chimney Farm Hedges

SP17G6

pLWS

SP134736

Pool

SP17K3

pLWS

SP141714

Burton Farm Paddocks

SP17B3

pLWS

SP102727

Earlswood Lakes

SP17B12

pLWS

SP111733

Field

SP17B6

pLWS

SP119736

Wood’s Coppice

SP17B11

pLWS

SP115723

Spring Coppice

SP17L5

pLWS

SP145724

Fools Wood

SP17K2

pLWS

SP153713

Umberslade Park Old Oaks

SP17F1

pLWS

SP139716

Umberslade Park Woods

SP17F3

pLWS

SP138717

Umberslade Parks Lakes

SP17F2

pLWS

SP135712

Wood

SP17K1

pLWS

SP159702

Mows Hill Dingles

SP16J2

pLWS

SP139692

Bank

SP17F4

pLWS

SP128700

Browns Green Wood

SP17F6

pLWS

SP120714

Tanworth Hedgerow

SP17A1

pLWS

SP116704

Malthouse Lane Meadows

SP17B8

pLWS

SP109719

Penn Lane & Gilbert Green Meadows

SP07V1

pLWS

SP091714

The Gorse

SP07V7

pLWS

SP091708

Marsh

SP07V2

pLWS

SP088710

Hedgerow

SP07V3

pLWS

SP087713

Little Ford Hall

SP16E3

pLWS

SP111691

Pond

SP17B4

pLWS

SP108722

Hedgerow

SP17B5

pLWS

SP110722

Aspley Heath Plantation

SP07V5

pLWS

SP095703

Aspley Farm Plantation

SP07V6

pLWS

SP098700

Hedgerow

SP07V4

pLWS

SP099708

Jonathans Coppice

SP17G11

pLWS

SP128722

Jonathans Farm Ponds

SP17G3

pLWS

SP124722

Hedgerow

SP17A2

pLWS

SP106701

Tithe Barn Lane Woodland

SP17G9

pLWS

SP120723

Hedgerow and Ditch

SP16P2

pLWS

SP147688

 These sites are of local importance and are designated by Warwickshire County Council and are listed on their website:-

Possible policy for the protection of Wild Life Sites

Development proposals affecting designated sites will need to include measures to protect and enhance the site, resulting in a net gain to biodiversity that can be maintained in perpetuity. Where development proposals affect a potential Local Wildlife Sites the applicant will need to to arrange for the site to be assessed against the Green Book criteria as part of the development application.

Protection of Priority Habitats and Species

 [Background Text to be drafted]

Possible Policy

Priority habitats and species (as defined by NERC 2006) and local priority species (as defined in Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Local Biodiversity Action Plan) will be protected. Development affecting such species will incorporate measures to ensure that the local population is maintained in the long term. Development resulting in the loss of such species will not be supported.

A map showing those areas of priority habitat can be found on DEFRA website :-

http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic=Designations&activelayer=sssiIndex&query=HYPERLINK%3D%271001494%27

Protection of Habitat Connectivity

[ Background text to be drafted] 

Possible Policy

New developments will maintain and enhance habitat corridors for the wildlife using them. Where surveys show that bats are using these corridors lighting will be controlled to exclude or minimise light spill onto the habitat. Water courses will be buffered by a minimum of 8m of vegetation from the top of the bank.

 Ancient Woodland

Need for background paragraph?

Possible Policy

Ancient woodland will be protected and where appropriate enhanced. Development proposals which directly or indirectly harm ancient woodland will not be supported. Where development is proposed adjacent to ancient woodland, a natural buffer will be required to protect the ancient woodland. For small developments a minimum of 15m may be appropriate and for large developments a minimum of 50m will be required.

Protection of Individual Trees

Need for background paragraph?

Possible Policies

Wherever possible existing trees will be maintained in accordance with British Standard BS5837 (or as updated). New developments must make provision for trees on site. New trees should comprise species native to the locality to ensure landscape character is retained.

New developments of 10 or more dwellings or new employment schemes shall submit a planting scheme as part of the planning application which will:

  • Show on a map the trees to be retained and removed,
  • State the measures to be taken to protect trees during construction,
  • Provide species lists for the different types of planting; avenue, gardens, open space etc.,
  • Include a plan showing the estimated canopy and root growth upon maturity, ensuring that built infrastructure is not affected by root spread.
  •  

Protecting Landscape

 In 2012 Stratford upon Avon District Council commissioned a Landscape Sensitivity Study for 39 villages in the District (including Tanworth and Earlswood) to “assist the District Council to determine the most appropriate locations for development to be identified in the Local Development Framework, whether in the form of strategic sites allocated within the Core Strategy, or as other sites to be allocated in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document”.

In the case of Tanworth-in-Arden five zones (T01 to T05) were identified surrounding the historic core of the village and all of the zones were identified as areas of constraint with high or high/medium sensitivity to housing and commercial development.

As far as Earlswood was concerned,seven zones (E01 to E07) were identified and these were also identified as areas of high/medium sensitivity to housing and commercial development.

The potential development sites identified in this report have been investigated by the Housing group – see housing section.

The Residents’ survey carried out in March 2015 indicated that locals attribute a high level of importance to living in a rural environment with narrow lanes and hedgerows which provides easy access to SSSIs, woodlands and footpaths. Both Earlswood Lakes and Tanworth conservation area are highly valued by local residents as is the view from Tanworth churchyard, among others.

Research carried out as part of the character assessment project has established that the whole of the Parish of Tanworth falls within Arden landscape. The management strategy recommended by the Warwickshire Landscapes Project is to conserve and restore the ancient irregular landscape pattern. The region as a whole is former wood pasture and heath characterized by ancient woodlands, mature hedgerow oaks and a dispersed settlement pattern of brick and half-timbered farmsteads and wayside cottages. Zones T01 to T05 consist of medium irregular fields with boundary hedgerows interspersed with trees (mainly oaks), which provide filtered views of the surrounding countryside. The wooded landscape complements and acts as an important setting for the hilltop Conservation village, which can be viewed at many points from the network of surrounding footpaths and serves to separate the village from other nearby settlements.   There are attractive views out from several points in the village for example from the footpath at the top of Vicarage Hill, Doctor’s Hill and the churchyard out towards Danzey Green and the approaches to the village, particularly the rising approach via Vicarage Hill are equally attractive.

Although set in the same Arden landscape, Earlswood has a different character to that of Tanworth.Whereas Tanworth village is clustered on a hill, Earlswood has two areas of ribbon development on either side of the valley of Spring Brook.

Most of the houses are 20th century and built along The Common and Malthouse Lane but the open land between these roads and the Lakes which dominate the area give Earlswood a sense of openness and a rural character that is distinct and attractive to residents and visitors alike.

Possible Policy

Outside of built up areas priority will be given to protecting and enhancing the countryside from inappropriate development. A proposal for development will only be permitted where:

 A site has been allocated for development in the NDP

  1. It would not have a detrimental impact on, and would enhance, areas identified as having major or substantial landscape value or sensitivity and
  2. It would not have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of Tanworth Conservation village or Earlswood Lakes area and
  3. It would maintain the distinctive view of the surrounding countryside from public vantage points within, and adjacent to, the built up area and
  4. Would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenery of the SSSIs.Full details of the professional landscape studies of the two LSVs may be found using the following link:https://www.stratford.gov.uk/planning/landscape-sensitivity-study-2012.cfm
  5.  
  6.  
  7.  

Hedgerows

Background Text to be drafted?

Possible Policy

Wherever possible hedgerows will be retained and enhanced. Development proposals should be accompanied by a Hedgerow Survey and proposed designs demonstrate sympathetic development around hedges of high or moderate quality. This should include a management plan for the hedgerow to allow it to develop into a high value habitat, including a grassland buffer.

Biodiversity in Development in Lanscaping Schemes

[Background Text to be drafted?]

Possible Policy

Benefits for biodiversity will be incorporated into Landscaping schemes. Planting will prioritise the use of native species of local provenance. The use of species known to be invasive or nuisance will not be supported.  

Criteria for deciding proposals for conversion of redundant agricultural buildings – outstanding 

[ To be drafted]

Earlswood Lakes – A Special Place, A Special Case

Earlswood Lakes consist of three pools – Engine Pool, Windmill Pool, and Terry’s Pool.

The pools are of almost equal size and cover a total area of 70acres.

The natural beauty of the Lakes has made them a very popular attraction for local residents and visitors alike with their open vistas and stunning views.

The Lakes are a haven for wildlife and offer excellent recreational facilities for walking, sailing, fishing or simply enjoying nature and large numbers of visitors are attracted to the Lakes every year providing excellent opportunities for local businesses such as pubs, shops and Earlswood Craft Centre.

That the Lakes are valued by the local community cannot be disputed as 88% of Earlswood residents said in the survey that the Lakes were important to them.

The importance of the Lakes and its surrounding environs for local wildlife cannot be overstated. In a relatively small area there are a wide variety of habitats resulting in a rich biodiversity of flora and fauna

The Lakes are designated as a Local Wildlife Site (SP17B2) and there are two Potential Wildlife Sites adjoining the Lakes (SP17B12 and SP17C1). The Lakes adjoin and effectively link two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – Clowes Wood & New Fallings Coppice (Site ref: 15WAK) to the west of Terry’s Pool and the River Blythe (Site ref: 15WFS) which borders Windmill Pool on three sides.

(map showing designated sites)

The combination of the mature woodland of Clowes Wood and the open expanse of water of the Lakes creates an ideal habitat for many species of bat and the area is regarded as one of the most important areas for bats in the whole of the Midlands.Of the 17 species of bat in the UK, 7 have been recorded in the area in recent years and over 50 species of bird, including all three woodpecker species, are known to nest in the area.

The Lakes still meet their original function of supplying water to the Stratford-upon -Avon Canal and although the original beam engine for pumping the water has been replaced, the original engine house is still there and is a grade II listed building.

Preservation of the natural beauty and heritage of Earlswood Lakes is paramount to retaining the character of Earlswood in particular and the parish as a whole.

Recent Developments

 Views around all three Lakes have been compromised by recent developments and in order to preserve the tranquillity and natural beauty of the Lakes we need to prevent any further urbanization of this sensitive area. By protecting the environs around the Lakes we will safeguard these valuable assets for future generations and preserve important wildlife habitats.

Possible Policy 

  • Development within the protected area will not be supported with the exception of in-fill within the existing built up area that is consistent with Green Belt policy and maintains the current building line. 
  • Backland development will not be supported within the designated area.

 (map showing proposed protected area)

Note:- The logical boundaries for the designated area are from Clowes Wood car park along Wood Lane to Valley Road, along Valley Road to The Common, along The Common to Springbrook Lane, along Springbrook Lane to where it meets the railway line and along the railway line back to the border of Clowes Wood.

This area encompasses the Lakes, the designated wildlife sites, areas of priority habitat, the recreation ground and allotments on Wood Lane and The Common.

It should be noted that part of this area (ie the area bordered by Lakes and Wood Lane lie outside the parish of Tanworth and form part of the parish of Tidbury Green. Therefore Tidbury Green Parish Council would need to accept these proposals as part of their NDP or we need to redraw the boundary of the proposed area to follow the line of the parish boundary.

Protecting the Historic heritage 

The historic character of the parish is evident in its buildings. The protection of these historic buildings is essential to retain the historic character, architecture and landscape of the parish. There are 100 listed buildings in the parish many of which lie within the Tanworth Conservation Area. These designated assets have statutory protection.   There is a recognition in the NPPF that thee are also heritage assets that are not designated but may be just as  valuable

The Core Strategy makes the point that the significance of such non-designated heritage asset may be due to the importance of its local vernacular, its architectural style, or its cultural and historic value, or a combination thereof. It goes on to say that Neighbourhood Plans provide an ideal medium to identify, protect and enhance such assets that are valued by the community.

As part of the survey of the Parish’s character the buildings listed below are proposed for protection. Do you think a policy along the following lines is desirable.

Possible POLICY :   Protecting Buildings of Local importance  

The Buildings of Local Importance identified in Table 1, although not statutorily listed, will be protected from inappropriate development.

Alteration and conversion will be permitted when the building is retained and the proposed development is sympathetic to the heritage value of the building. The loss of these buildings will only be permitted when all of the following are satisfied:

  1. a) the loss of the building would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area;
  2. b) the building is in a poor state of repair and it can be clearly demonstrated that economic cost of bringing the building back in to use outweighs its value as a heritage asset;
  3. c) the building is a danger to public safety, and
  4. d) the building can no longer sustain a viable use.

Where redevelopment leading to replacement is considered necessary, and can be demonstrated by the applicant against the criteria in this policy, proposals will have to demonstrate that the replacement development will make a positive contribution to the character of the local area.

Table 1 Locally important buildings

 

Name

Location

Approximate

Date

 

Village Primary School, The Green

Tanworth

1880

The School House, The Green

 

1880

The Old Workhouse, Well Lane

 

1837

Oxstalls, The Green

 

1850

War Memorial Cross, The Green

 

1920

Garage Frontage, Doctors Hill

 

1900

The Malt Shovel

 

1850

The Homestead

 

 

Village Hall

 

1920

Whalebone Cottage

 

1800

The Old Vicarage, Vicarage Hill

 

1850

Vicarage Coach House, Vicarage Hill

 

1850

The Whitehead Almshouses, Bates Lane

 

1873

The Lodge, Bates Lane

 

1900

Far Leys, Bates Lane

 

1900

Telephone Exchange

Aspley Heath

 

White Cottage

Aspley Heath

 

Moat House

Aspley Heath

 

Robin Hood Farm

Danzey

 

Station Master’s House & Railway Cottages

Danzey

1910

White House Farmhouse

Earlswood

 

The Reservoir Pub

Earlswood

 

The Bungalow, Juggins Lane

Forshaw Heath

 

Wayside Cottage

Hockley Heath

 

Rose Cottage

Hockley Heath

 

Royal Oak Inn (Warwickshire Lad)

Wood End

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2012 Stratford-on-Avon District commissioned a historic environment assessment of LSVs including Earlswood and Tanworth. A full copy of the report can be found using the following link:

https://www.stratford.gov.uk/planning/historic-environment-assessment.cfm

The Earlswood report identifies 1 Scheduled Monument (Salter Street Farm) and 16 listed buildings within the 500m study area.   An area of ridge and furrow was identified in the fields adjacent to Salter Street Farm. Three areas of high archaeological sensitivity were identified:

Enclosures to the west of the modern village
Salter Street Farm (Scheduled medieval remain
The Old Moathouse

A buffer of medium sensitivity has been designated around the latter 2 sites and a 50m buffer of sensitivity along the route of the Salter Street trackway. Further medium sensitivity sites have been assigned at Engine House and at the crossroads of Valley Road and the B4102 and also where cropmarks associated with the canal basin to the north of the village have been identified.

Recommendations for appropriate actions for each of these categories in the event of development are set out in the report. The Tanworth report lists one grade 1 and 36 grade II listed buildings within the 500m study area. Although there are no scheduled monuments within the area, the Hob Ditch at Danzey falls into this category.

Areas of high archaeological sensitivity are recorded within the historic core of the village and at the locations of the three recorded prehistoric burnt mounds.

The fields adjacent to the burnt mounds are indicated as having medium sensitivity as does the area to the north and east of the Church, the site of Knowlebury Cross and Tanworth Vicarage Garden. The linear cropmark features on the east and circular features in the south are also of medium sensitivity.

Areas of ridge and furrow have been deemed as low/medium sensitivity.

Recommendations for appropriate actions for each of these categories in the event of development are set out in the report.

The Report ends with the following recommendation “For any new development/alterations within or adjacent to the extent of the conservation area, it is recommended that early consultation is undertaken with the Stratford-on-Avon Conservation Officer. Works within the conservation area will require Conservation Area Consent and all works will need to consider the visual impact of the area and its setting. Similar consideration should be made of the impact upon character of listed buildings with the study area, and their setting. Any alterations or demolition would require Listed Building Consent. Consultation with English Heritage may be required for the highest grade of buildings.”

Policy

[ To be drafted]

Tanworth Conservation Area

 The historic core of Tanworth village was designated a Conservation Area in 1969 and some minor changes to the boundary following the publication of a Conservation Area review in February 1994. This report details the key features of the Conservation area which contains twenty listed buildings (including the Grade 1 listed church) and a further 15 buildings considered to be of local interest and important to the character of the Conservation area.   The report also describes the building materials used in both the small-scale cottages and the more prestigious buildings within the village centre and records their architectural details. The Conservation area is divided into 4 zones which each have different characteristics. The approach to the village from Vicarage Hill is defined as an important area of land which should be protected from development. The report also states that: “firm control should be kept on boundary walls, fences, hedges and paving materials, which, however trivial they may seem, all can either make or mar the landscape character”.

Possible Policy 

[ To be drafted]

Transport

No work has been done, but in the household survey residents are satisfied with train services but want a better bus service. That said, far fewer of the populous use bus or train to travel to work than the national average. This has been tested in the past by additional services being added but then taken away through lack of use. There are also comparatively few people in the Parish that cycling to work.

When looking at the 2011 census there are some key differences in the Parish compared to both the district and nationally:

  • A higher proportion of the total population work from home (8.9% locally: 6.9% in the district: and 3.5% nationally)
  • Far fewer people travel to work by bus or train than nationally (3.3%:2.8%:11.2% as a percentage of the total population)
  • Most people drive to work than nationally (48.7%:47.4%:37.4% as a percentage of the total population). This is even more significant when just considering the working population (72.7%:72.0%:57.8%)
  • Of the total population, far fewer people cycle to work than both regional and national populous (4.1%:9.0%:9.3%)

We have also informally assessed the train service and facilities locally, interviewing people at the nearby Whitlocks End Station. Our conclusions are that

  • Most people using Whitlocks End are not local and travel some distance to use the station and the free parking. Developing our current stations and expanding the parking would only therefore draw people from outside the Parish, possibly from other stations that either charge for parking or where parking is problematic. This will also increase traffic flow in the Parish further for little benefit to the community
  • The deep cutting at Wood End would make it inappropriate for future development and expansion anyway due to its poor access

Possible Policies

  • Due to the dominance of car usage and ownership in the Parish, future developments should include sufficient parking for the required number of cars per household to avoid further issues with off-street car parking. [ This might be placed in Development design]
  • We have not identified any policies concerning railways as to expand the current facilities will likely be used by people outside the Parish – locals already being satisfied in general with the current service and having reasonable access to the 4 stations within the Parish
  • Due to lack of resource and willing volunteers in this area, we have also not identified policies around buses or cycling despite the low level of satisfaction and little use

Traffic Management

There is a significant dependence on cars and driving within the Parish. Whether this is as a result of the rural nature of the community, the wealth, size of houses and occupancy, or the quality of public transport is unknown. Compared to district and national averages within the 2011 census, the Parish has a significant bias in favour of multi-car ownership:

Number of cars

Parish

District

National

0

5.5%

12.8%

25.8%

1

27.4%

38.2%

42.2%

2

42.4%

35.3%

24.7%

3

16.2%

9.5%

5.5%

4+

12.6%

4.2%

1.9%

Whilst there is significant reliance on cars and overall in the household survey 77% of people viewed that traffic travelled too quickly through the parish, there was no appetite for people to give up what they currently value most – the rural nature of the parish and its roads – in favour of introducing traffic calming, safety and flow management initiatives i.e. roundabouts, speed bumps, traffic lights, streetlights etc. This is particularly important given the currently underway or planned significant development of land neighbouring the Parish that is likely to lead to more traffic on the Parish’s roads and infrastructure.

 Possible Policy

 The Parish and District Councils should ensure that that sufficient co-ordination in the planning of development neighbouring the Parish is undertaken to provide adequate road schemes capable of moving additional traffic such that it doesn’t have an adverse impact upon the quality of rural nature of the Parish and the road network seen as so important and enjoyed by the local community.

  • Future changes to the road network should only be made where dictated by safety and must remain in keeping with the rural nature of the Parish avoiding speed bumps, chicanes etc that detract from the character of the parish 
  •  

Employment and Business

Contained within the Parish is a diverse range of businesses and employers, both in size, location and sector including manufacturing, services, retail and leisure, and public services. The majority of businesses are based at single site premises specific to their business or on one of several small industrial or commercial sites located in the parish. In addition there are also thought to be a significant number of unidentifiable micro and single proprietor businesses based at domestic premises in the Parish. From the 2011 census:

  • A significant fall in those ‘looking after the home’ in comparison to 10 years prior
  • The number of retired people living in the parish is significantly higher than the district and national averages (21.7%:17.3%13.7%)
  • The number of people working full-time is significantly less than the district and national averages (33.6%:38.5%:38.6%) but this is balanced by a higher number of self-employed (18.6%:14.1%:14.1%)
  • The balance of skills is generally comparable to district and national averages with the exception of people at the higher and lower ends of the spectrum whereby there are nearly 26% of economically active people in managerial and director level roles (compared with 15.6% at district and 10.9% at national level) compared with those carrying out ‘process and elementary’ roles (8.4%:14.3%:18.3%)
  • As above, a higher proportion of the population work from home (8.9% locally: 6.9% in the district: and 3.5% nationally)
  • A higher proportion of the population work from home (8.9% locally: 6.9% in the district: and 3.5% nationally)

From the initial household survey conducted, support for business included within the NDP from the local community was felt to be generally balanced with 41% believing support to be less important and 32% believing support to be important (with 28% ambivalent). This also extended to the nature of that support whereby the local community was similarly balanced in including small scale expansion of existing businesses (41% against and 31% view as suitable) within the NDP and for allowing change of use for new and expanding business (47% against with 31% viewing it as suitable). There was however a strong view that allocating extra land for small scale business development was not suitable (69% against vs 15% for). Within the responses to the household survey there was also strong support (59% viewed as very important) for local convenience stores and post offices.

To assess the views of business as to what they value and the support they would propose be included in the NDP:

  • 77% of businesses supported change of use to support new or expanding business; 9% disagreed and 5% didn’t know (2 didn’t answer)
  • 64% of businesses supported brownfield development; 5% disagreed and 15% didn’t know (3 didn’t answer)
  • 35% of businesses supported development on greenfield sites; 45% didn’t support greenbelt development and 15% didn’t know (1 didn’t answer)
  • 41% of businesses thought the NDP should include more land for additional housing; 23% of businesses disagreed and 32% didn’t offer a view.

Additionally, businesses were surveyed as to what aspects of the parish they found advantageous and what they found as disadvantageous in doing business:

  • Most advantageous was considered the parish’s proximity and access to the motorway network
  • Also of significant advantage was the countryside setting
  • Proximity to Birmingham was also considered somewhat advantageous as was the fact that some owners lived close-by
  • The business community were relatively ambivalent as to whether rent prices, local services or the train service provided any benefit or disadvantage
  • Local planning policies, staff recruitment in the area and the strength of mobile phone reception were all identified as being mildly disadvantageous to business
  • The one big disadvantage highlighted by businesses was the speed of Broadband in the Parish

In many ways the experiences and ambitions of business are aligned with those of households i.e. maintaining the countryside setting; improving broadband speeds and mobile telephony strengths. In other areas the community is relatively ambivalent and should be persuaded to adopt policies that are beneficial and in some areas there is an aligned position to resist change i.e. the allocation of Greenfield sites for new business.

We should therefore look to promote pro-business policies and consult further with the community in the following areas:

 Possible Policies

  • Change of Use and extensions – The NDP should look to encourage business enterprise and retain jobs locally and support the growth of small and micro businesses, many of which are suited to our topography and infrastructure. This support should be provided on the basis that any change does not adversely impact the character of the area or the amenity of neighbours. This should include allowing the change of use or small scale extension of of existing buildings where it is appropriate to do so:
    • The proposed development is of a scale and form and in keeping with the size and character of its surroundings and setting
    • The scale of development can be clearly related to the employment needs of the local economy
    • That proposals will not generate trips by HGVs using the parish rural road network
  • Homeworking – The provision of local workspaces and homeworking in the Parish will be supported providing the proposals are small scale and they are appropriate to the character of the area, local settlement and the Parish. In all cases preference will be for the conversion of existing buildings rather than new build. This policy is reliant on improvements to the rural broadband and mobile telephony networks.
  • Community assets and retail development – Given the importance attributed to the village stores and post offices the NDP should support the application of these shops as community assets along with other relevant local assets. The NDP should also support any change of use of residential premises in the existing village centres to suitable retail if proposed.
  • Rural tourism – Proposals for new tourism development appropriate to a rural area will be supported, including:
    • Informal recreation
    • Development that is part of a wider farm diversification
    • Formal recreation proposals that would not require new buildings and would not lead to significant vehicular traffic or noise

Infrastructure

[Explanatory text to be drafted]

Possible General Policy

All future development should be considered in respect of existing infrastructure (telephony, broadband, electrical power, drainage -foul and rainwater, mains gas and water supply) and permission only granted when the applicant can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for the existing and proposed developments within and directly adjacent to the development area or the scheme includes measures to improve the same so as to not to adversely impact on neighbouring properties.

 In particular

Due consideration should be given to proposed developments in terms of the impact it will have on the existing surface water (over-land) drainage and the applicant shall demonstrate how such impacts will be mitigated whether through conventional or sustainable drainage schemes including on site storage and attenuated release in order to reduce the flooding

 Broadband and Mobile phone infrastructure

Survey findings revealed a very low level of satisfaction with Broadband (11%) and mobile telephony (19%) amongst households and businesses generally viewed Broardband as significantly disadvantageous and constraining on their business. The 2011 census also showed a relatively high number of people in the Parish working from home (8.9% v 6.9% in the district and 3.5% nationally)

Policy

The Parish Council should proactively support and facilitate the widespread coverage of high speed broadband and mobile telephony across the Parish

 

Appendix  A:   Tanworth Household Survey 2015

Every adult over 18 received a questionnaire (rather than one questionnaire for each household). Overall the response rate was 35%, which is high for a survey of this kind. The highest response rate was in Tanworth village, at 62%, and the lowest response rates wee fron areas at the edge of the Parish and who understandably look to centres outside the Parish.

Generally speaking except where the questions are about specific local factors there would seem to be little variation across the Parish. In particular the results for Earlswood and Tanworth, the principle villages are very similar.

The respondents are not completely representative of the population. In respect of age 57% of the respondents to the survey are 60 or over whereas the equivalent figure for the population as a whole is 44%. Conversely the proportion of survey respondents under 45 is only 14% compared to 26%. for the population as a whole. So there is a noticeable bias towards the elderly.

Below is a marked up copy of the questionnaire. 

 

1

How important are the following  aspects of the local environment  to you? 

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important please tick the appropriate box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all important

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Very

important

5

Earlswood Lakes and recreation area.

3

5

12

16

64

Tanworth village Conservation Area

3

3

12

22

60

Being in or near open countryside,  protected by the Green Belt

 

1

1

2

7

89

Local Sites of Special Scientific interest and wild life habitats

2

3

13

22

60

Local woodlands, footpaths and bridleways

1

2

5

19

73

  Narrow lanes and hedgerows in the Parish

3

5

16

25

52

Tanworth in Arden churchyard with its far reaching views

4

5

15

23

53

The preservation of historic buildings in the Parish

2

2

10

27

60

 

2

How important   are the following to your quality of life in the Parish  of Tanworth

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important please tick the appropriate box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all important

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Very

important

5

Sense of community, local clubs and institutions

3

3

23

26

45

Access to Motorways

7

11

30

26

27

Trains to Birmingham and Stratford (and local connections to London and the rest of the country)

4

8

20

25

43

Local convenience stores and Post Offices

2

2

10

28

59

Local pubs

4

7

19

28

42

 

3

Are you personally affected by any of the following?

Please tick the appropriate box

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Affected

 

Sometimes

 

 

Greatly Affected

 

Smoke and air pollution

70

26

4

Flooding

71

26

3

Noise pollution

41

47

11

Pet waste/litter

45

46

9

Anti-social behaviour

71

27

2

Fly tipping

44

47

9

 

 

 

4

How satisfied are you with the following services? 

 

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied please tick the appropriate box

 

 

Not satisfied

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Very Satisfied

5

No Opinion

Surface water drainage

25

15

31

14

11

3

Sewerage system

29

7

25

20

15

4

Electricity

5

18

39

21

14

1

Broadband

53

23

9

4

7

1

Mobile telephone network

41

25

10

10

9

2

Recycling / refuse collection

5

6

14

27

48

1

Pre school nurseries

4

0

10

7

13

66

Primary schools

3

1

9

9

17

60

 

Emergency services (Police, Fire and Ambulance)

7

5

38

15

10

25

 

Provision of allotments

5

3

16

4

3

69

 

Services for the elderly

5

10

16

2

6

61

 

Road maintenance and gritting

21

28

29

12

11

1

 

Waste bin provision

5

7

24

34

21

9

 

Village halls ( Earlswood and Tanworth)

2

2

16

30

29

21

 

Section Two: Housing.

To comply with the Stratford District Council’s strategy the NDP must provide for up to 45 new homes by the year 2031 in the three main settlements as follows: in Earlswood up to 25 new homes, in Tanworth Village up to 10 new homes and in Wood End up to 10 new homes.

 

5

Do you think that a total of up to 45 new homes in the Parish by 2031 is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too few

 

 

 

2

 

Too many

 

 

4

About right

Please tick the appropriate box.

5

45

51

 

6

What size development(s) do you think are suitable in the Parish?

 

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all suitable  and 5 is very suitable  please tick the appropriate box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all suitable

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Very suitable

5

Sites for 10 to20 houses

63

12

11

4

10

Sites for   5 to 9houses

25

14

26

14

25

Sites for less than 5  houses

11

5

15

19

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

What sort of new homes should be built in the Parish between now and 2031?

 

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all suitable  and 5 is very suitable  please tick the appropriate box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not suitable

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Vey suitable

5

Small/ Starter homes – usually up to 2 bedrooms

22

10

21

17

30

Family homes – usually 3 bedrooms

8

8

24

31

29

Larger houses – usually detached and 4 plus bedrooms

32

16

20

14

18

Retirement housing

16

12

24

20

29

Flats

77

10

7

3

3

Eco friendly housing – using green technologies and features

16

10

26

18

29

 

Affordable housing including social housing -for rent/shared ownership

46

14

18

8

14

 

8

Has anyone in your household had to leave the Parish  in the last 5 years because no affordable / suitable housing was available?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

Please tick as appropriate

 

9

92

 

9

Does anyone in your household  need alternative housing  now?    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

Please tick as appropriate

 

4

96

 

If the answer is yes can those who need alternative accommodation please complete the annex to this   questionnaire which can be found on the last page

Section Three:  Transport

10

When considering transport how satisfied are you with the following?

 

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all satisfied  and 5 is very satisfied  please tick the appropriate box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all Satisfied

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Very Satisfied

5

Train services to Birmingham and Stratford

7

8

32

30

23

Bus Services

41

19

26

8

6

 

11

Do you feel that traffic passes too quickly through the roads in the Parish? (

 

Please tick as appropriate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

 

77

 

2

 

Too Much

 

 

4

NO

 

77

23

 

If yes, where in particular

 

 

 

12

Whilst retaining the rural character what measures would you like to see to deal with traffic and safety issues in the following locations.

 

 

 

 

Entry Roads in to Earlswood

Broad Lane

Entry Roads in to Tanworth

Tanworth Village Centre

Earlswood Centre Cross Roads

Penn/Poolhead Lane

Forshaw Heath Lane/Road

Malthouse Lane

 

 

 

Speed bumps

16

7

11

11

14

8

6

9

 

 

 

Restricted access

5

2

7

12

2

4

4

6

 

 

 

Speed cameras

14

18

4

3

9

5

5

3

 

 

 

Traffic lights

4

1

0

0

13

0

0

1

 

 

 

Remodelled junctions

6

1

2

3

10

2

3

1

 

 

 

More off street parking

3

1

5

21

7

1

0

5

 

 

 

Pedestrian crossings

6

7

1

3

18

0

1

1

 

 

 

Roundabouts

2

1

1

1

8

1

1

0

 

 

 

Street lighting

12

11

9

10

10

8

6

11

 

 

 

None of the above

66

70

74

62

53

80

79

72

 

 

 

If there are other areas where you have concerns please identify them in the spaces left blank in the table above.

Section Four :Businesses and Employment

13

How important do you think it is to encourage and facilitate new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses in order to improve the local economy and increase job opportunities?

 

 

 (Pleasetick)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all important  and 5 is very important  please tick the appropriate box

 

Not at all important

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Very Important

5

 

 

26

15

28

16

16

 

 

 

14

Which of the following do you think we should do to encourage and facilitate new and existing businesses?

 

 

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all suitable  and 5 is very suitable  please tick the appropriate box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all suitable

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

Very suitable

5

Allocate extra land for small scale business developments

54

15

16

8

7

Allow small scale expansion of existing business

27

16

26

19

12

Allow changes of use of existing buildings for business purposes, especially new business

32

15

24

16

15

 

15

 

 

 

 

 

16

If you could change or improve one aspect of the Parish what would it be?

 

 

Have you any other comments to make that would be relevant to the Neighbourhood Development Plan?

 

 

 

 

 

Demographics (optional)

We would very much appreciate it if you could complete the following demographic questions. This information will only be used to check that we have the views of a  representative cross section of the population by comparing the answers with recent census data.

What is your Age Group?  Please tick as appropriate

18 to 29

30-44

45-59

60-74

75 +

 

Annex toTanworth in Arden Neighbourhood Development Plan Survey

Supplementary Questions for those who said they needed alternative accommodation (Completed by 28 households)

SQ1

What is your current housing tenure?  Please tick as appropriate

 

Living with parents

61

Owner occupier with mortgage

18

 

Living with friends

 

Owner occupier no mortgage

7

 

Private renting

18

Tied accommodation

 

 

Housing Association or Local authority renting

 

Housing Association shared ownership

 

 

Other  (please specify)

 

 

 

 

 

SQ2

Why do you need alternative accommodation?   Please tick one or more of the reasons if they are appropriate

 

Need independent accommodation

53

Need to be closer to employment

 

 

Need smaller accommodation

9

Need to be closer to a dependent

 

 

Need less expensive home

16

Need secure accommodation

 

 

Need to be closer to relatives

3

Need larger accommodation

10

 

Not Stated

9

 

 

 

SQ3

What type of housing do you need?    Please tick as appropriate.

 

 

 

 

Tenure

Owner occupier

50

Private renting

7

Social renting

14

Any

7

Not Stated

22

                       

 

 

Type of Housing needed

House

38

Bungalow

13

Flat

15

Not Stated

22

 

 

Number of bedrooms needed

1

4

2

50

3

25

4

11

Not stated

14

 

SQ4

Are You on a Housing Register?Please tick as appropriate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

 

 

 

2

 

Too Much

 

 

4

NO

 

8

92

 

If yes please specify.

 

 

SQ5

 

Do you have, or have you had, a local connection?  Please tick as appropriate

 

 

Currently live in the Parish

100

 

 

 

 

Previously lived in the Parish

0

 

 

 

 

Born in the Parish

36

 

 

 

Currently work in the Parish

4

 

 

 

Close relatives in the Parish

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B – Tanworth Business Survey 2015

A survey of 88 businesses within the Parish was undertaken between October and December 2015. The survey sought the views of relevant organisations listed by Stratford DC as registered for business rates, plus others found as businesses within the parish and with a presence as such on the internet along with a sample of farms. In all 88 surveys were posted along with reply paid envelopes.

3 were returned as ‘not known’ by Royal Mail and of the remaining 85, 22 were returned completed (26%). Responses were received from across the parish with 45% of respondents in Earlswood, 41% in Tanworth, 9% from Wood End and 5% from Forshaw Heath.

We also received views from a diverse sample of businesses by size (excluding the proprietor), including several of the Parish’s largest employers, such that 14% of the sample was from businesses with employee numbers above 25; 18% with employees numbering between 10 and 24; 41% with employees numbering between 5 and 9; 23% with employees numbering between 1 and 4; and 4% a sole proprietor. Based upon a straight average of respondents’ responses – 25% of those employees are part-time.

Of those businesses who replied – 18% were started within 5 years; 23% 5-10 years ago; 32% 10-25 years; and 27% >25 years ago. Of the 9 businesses that were started in the last 10 years, reasons that were given are again diverse without any overwhelming reasons obvious:

  • Bought business in Parish
  • Nice area
  • Close to motorway
  • Relocation
  • Suitable business premises
  • Where I live

 

Based upon a straight average of respondents’ answers – 17% of employees live within the Parish; 37% lived within 5 miles of the Parish; and 46% lived further than 5 miles from the Parish.

Similarly, on a straight average of respondents’ answers – 25% of business is done locally within the Parish; 25% within 15 miles of the Parish; 49% National; and 1% International.

One of the key questions posed in the survey was question 10 – ‘What are the advantages or disadvantages for your business being located in the Tanworth Parish?’ – provides the following conclusions (using a score of +2 where a factor was considered as a big advantage, +1 where identified as some advantage, 0 as neither an advantage nor disadvantage, -1 where some disadvantage, and -2 where a strong disadvantage):

+1.36

Close to a motorways

+1.09

Countryside setting

+0.82

being where I live

+0.77

Close to Birmingham

+0.14

Rent prices

+0.05

Train services

0.00

Local services for the business

-0.36

Local planning policies

-0.36

Staff Recruitment

-0.55

Mobile phone services

-1.18

Broadband Speed

 

In question 11, businesses were asked to highlight areas that currently constrained their business and the following factors were highlighted:

  • 7x Broadband strength
  • 2x Public Transport
  • Unplanned roadworks
  • Power outages
  • Staff Recruitment
  • Mobile phone strength
  • Use of Village Green
  • Ageing society
  • Lack of investment
  • Refusal to redevelop on greenbelt
  • Space / parking

 

In answering question 12 – whether businesses think the NDP should support businesses and local services by including additional land for more housing – the answer was relatively balanced in that 41% of businesses thought the NDP should include more land for additional housing; 23% of businesses didn’t agree; 32% didn’t know and 1(4%) didn’t answer.

In question 13 – Should the NDP allow for the expansion of business/employment by allowing change of use of existing premises; development of brownfield sites or development of Greenfield sites:

  • 77% of businesses supported change of use; 9% didn’t and 5% didn’t know (2 didn’t answer)
  • 64% of businesses supported brownfield development; 5% didn’t and 15% didn’t know (3 didn’t answer)
  • 35% of businesses supported development on Greenfield; 45% didn’t support greenbelt development and 18% didn’t know (1 didn’t answer)
  • Other policies – 1 business supported infill development; 1 suggested a common sense approach to development; 1 supported a reduction in business rates and 1 didn’t know (18 didn’t answer)

 

Question 14 asked whether the NDP should include policies that supported the expansion of business or location of new businesses in the Parish – 32% said yes; 14% No and 50% didn’t know (1 didn’t answer).

Where businesses did support the NDP including such policies not all offered up any suggestions with those suggested being:

  • Active marketing of parish mindful of parking in Tanworth
  • Reduce small company business rates and improve Broadband
  • Expand golf club to include par 3 for use by juniors and older people
  • Greater understanding of Business needs for investment and refurbishment
  • Trading without nuisance for several years should imply an acceptability to expand

 

The final question (15) allowed for respondents to provide any other comments and was only completed by a minority:

  • “We are one of largest employer of ‘locals’ in the Parish often supporting local and national charities and organisations but we never feel reciprocation from Parish, District or County Councils with exception of our district and county councillors”
  • “Parish needs to decide whether continue moving to single employee residential businesses or include employee based businesses. Needs to stop decay and support investment in badly needed refurbishment of infrastructure to which parish constantly asks for. Public money has boundaries but private money knows none but needs management in policy”
  • Redevelopment of existing buildings should be supported for the benefit of business expansion and more housing

 

Dear Manager/Business Owner

As you may know, we are in the process of collating information in and around Tanworth-in-Arden Parish with regards to writing a Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Neighbourhood planning was introduced through the Localism Act 2011 and is an opportunity for communities to shape development in their areas through the production of Neighbourhood Development Plans.  Once agreed they become part of the District Council’s Local Plan and the policies contained within them are then used in the determination of planning applications.

As part of Stratford District Council`s Core Strategy the concept of Local Service Villages (LSVs) was introduced to support the required housing projections during the Plan period up to 2031. Our Parish is made up of three such LSV`s – Earlswood, Tanworth and Wood End but because the whole Parish is in the Green Belt the scope for new development is likely to be very limited. We are seeking input from residents and employers and business owners about local housing needs and how best to maintain and enhance the quality of our built-up and countryside environment.

We also need to look at how all this affects local services and businesses, whether positively or negatively and this is where we need your help.

If you could spare a few moments to fill in the questionnaire below, it will go a long way in helping us ensure we make the right choices for our local villages. We are particularly interested to understand what benefits or limitations you currently experience from being in the Parish and what opportunities or constraints you see in the future to developing your service or business.

Getting it right is crucial to the residents and to you in your service or business, so we thank you for your involvement. You are welcome to attend any of the Steering Group meetings that will be held and details can be found on the website http://tanworthndp.blogspot.co.uk/

Once completed please return the questionnaire using the pre-paid envelope provided to:

Tanworth-in-Arden Parish Council, Rear of Earlswood Village Hall; Shutt Lane; Earlswood; Solihull; B94 6BZ

 

 

  1. Where is the business/service located?

 Tanworth

9

 Earlswood

10

Wood End

2

 Forshaw Heath

1

 

If none of the above please say which you are nearest to:

  1. Is the business/service based at your home?

Yes / No* (3 answered yes)

  1. What best describes the nature of the business/service?

Construction 

Public service  (school, health service, other)    

√√

Retail  (including garden nurseries, auto trade, )

√√√√

Personal services  (hairdressers, beauty parlour, )

 

Pubs/restaurants

Leisure  

Professional services (accountancy, law, computer/IT, human resources, vet)

√√

Agriculture  (farming, farm supplies, )

 

Manufacturing

√√√√√√

Other   (please specify)

√√√√

Not completed

 

  1. Apart from you (if you are the owner), how many people are employed locally?

None

1

1 – 4

5

5 – 9

9

10 – 24

4

25+

3

 

  1. What proportion of employees works part time (less than 25 hours a week)?

25%

 

  1. What proportion of your employees live in:

The Parish

17%

Within 5 miles of the Parish

37%

More than 5 miles away from the Parish

46%

 

  1. What percentage of your business is:

 Local (within the Parish)

25%

 Within 15 miles (including Birmingham)

25%

 Rest of UK

49%

 International

1%

 

  1. How long has the business/service been established in the Parish?

<5 years;

4

5-10 years;

5

10-25 years;

7

>25  years

6

Don’t know

0

 

  1. If within 10 years, what were the reasons for establishing the business in the Parish?

·         Bought business in Parish

·         Nice area

·         Close to motorway

·         Relocation

·         Suitable business premises

·         Where I live

 

  1. What are the advantages or disadvantages for your business being located in Tanworth Parish?

 

A Big Advantage

Some Advantage

No Advantage

Some  Disadvantage

A big Disadvantage

Not Applicable

Staff recruitment

1

2

10

6

3

0

Train services

1

6

8

5

1

1

Broadband speed

0

2

3

6

11

0

Close to Birmingham

5

8

8

1

0

0

Mobile phone service

0

5

6

5

6

0

Close to Motorways

11

8

3

0

0

0

Countryside setting

8

8

5

0

0

1

Local planning policies

0

2

13

2

4

1

It is where I live     

8

3

3

1

0

7

Local services for the business

0

5

22

1

2

2

Rent prices

0

4

11

1

0

6

Other (specify)

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

  1. Are there any local constraints that are hindering, or may hinder, the development of your service or business in the future? If so, what are they?

·         7x Broadband strength

·         2x Public Transport

·         Unplanned roadworks

·         Power outages

·         Staff Recruitment

·         Mobile phone strength

·         Use of Village Green

·         Ageing society

·         Lack of investment

·         Refusal to redevelop on greenbelt

·         Space / parking

 

  1. To support local services and businesses, should the NDP provide more land for additional housing?

Yes / No / Don’t know* (9:5:7)

  1. Should the NDP allow for the expansion of business/employment by:

Allowing change of use of existing buildings?

Yes / No / Don’t know*

17:2:1

Development on Brownfield sites?

Yes / No / Don’t know*

14:1:4

Development on Green field sites?

Yes / No / Don’t know*

9:9:3

Other (specify)?

Yes / No / Don’t know*

3:0:1

 

  1. Should the NDP include policies that make it easier to locate businesses or expand businesses in the parish including home working?

                Yes / No / Don’t know*(7:3:11)

If yes, what would you suggest?

·         Active marketing of parish mindful of parking in Tanworth

·         Reduce small company business rates and improve Broadband

·         Expand golf club to include par 3 for use by juniors and older people

·         Greater understanding of Business needs for investment and refurbishment

·         Trading without nuisance for several years should imply an acceptability to expand

 

  1. Do you have any other comments?

·         “We are one of largest employer of ‘locals’ in the Parish often supporting local and national charities and organisations but we never feel reciprocation from Parish, District or County Councils with exception of our district and county councillors”

·         “Parish needs to decide whether continue moving to single employee residential businesses or include employee based businesses. Needs to stop decay and support investment in badly needed refurbishment of infrastructure to which parish constantly asks for. Public money has boundaries but private money knows none but needs management in policy”

·         Redevelopment of existing buildings should be supported for the benefit of business expansion and more housing

 

Thank you for your help and support

  

Appendix C: Consideration of Possible Limited Infill Sites for New Homes

Tanworth

Site 1 Butts Lane, Tanworth   (5-6 houses)

The site was included in the Council’s 2012 SHLAA who considered it suitable.

A small site, between the entrance drive to the school (and school car park) and houses on south side of the road. Arguably part of the village and would have little impact on the openness of the area because there are houses adjacent to the site and houses on the other side of the road. Suitable for smaller /affordable housing (some of adjacent houses are managed by a Housing Association . Might be considered limited infilling. Care would be needed with levels.

Possibly suitable

Site 2 Bates Lane, Tanworth ( 7 houses)

Site is put forward to the Council’s 2104 SHLAA.

Site is described as fields on north side of Bates Lane to junction with Blind Lane

Would have significant impact on openness of the area and narrow the gap between Tanworth and Aspley Heath. The edge of the village is clearly defined by the sharp bend in Bates lane and this site is well beyond it. Could not be considered limited infilling. Not suitable for smaller homes.

Not suitable

Site 3 Wayside Paddock, Bates Lane (5 houses)

Put forward to the 2014 SHLAA

Same considerations as other site in Bates Lane above

Not suitable

Wood End

Site 1   Land behind Warwickshire Lad pub (24 houses)

Put forward to the SHLAA 2014

Site is close to the centre of Wood End (although many are not convinced Wood End is a village community in the way that Tanworth and Earlswood are). It is a small narrow triangular stretch of land bounded by the railway and Wood End lane. Would not have a significant impact on the openness of the area or extend ribbon development. Could enable a proper car park for the station. Owners propose smaller and more affordable homes . The site is small and might be considered limited infilling but with 24 houses difficult to see it as limited infilling. Might be suitable site for Local Needs Scheme. A possible wild life site and fitting in with the character of the wider area are issues that need to be considered

Site 2 Golf Club, Penn Lane (10 -15 houses)

Put forward to the 2014 SHLAA

Site is part of golf Club. Would extend the ribbon development of Penn Lane and would reduce the separation of Portway from Wood End. Would harm the openness of the area. Not at all suitable for smaller homes having regard to the character of the area. Could not be considered limited infilling.

Not suitable

Site 3   Golf Club

Put forward to the 2014 SHLAA

Site not defined so impossible to comment

Earlswood

Site 1   Land Adjoining 141 The Common   (4-6 houses)

The Common is an unfortunate example of ribbon development stretching from the centre of Earlswood southwards for a mile, almost the motorway. The site, near the southern end of the development, is a gap in an extensive stretch of housing on both sides of the site (as well as on the other side of the road) but the width of the gap might not be considered limited infilling.

Owned by the Parish Council it would be suitable for smaller homes. Sorting out Trust issues could take time but the NDP is a long term plan

Possibly suitable

Site 2   Land Adjoining the Reservoir Pub (4-6 houses)

Site is between the pub and the south side of the Lakes.

Site is currently woodland and unused. At the heart of the village, adjacent to a pub and large car park (much used) and opposite houses it would have no impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Critical issues are access and impact on Lakes

Possibly suitable

Site 3   Land behind 96-98 Malthouse Lane (6-8 houses)

Put forward to the 2014 SHLAA

This would be backland development and on its own would create a significant extension into open land setting a precedent for other schemes Some limited backland development might be appropriate but depends on policy on the Lakes and more generally on views on such development.

Site 4   Valley road

Identified in SHLAA 2012. On the face of it could be limited infilling but likely that highway and flooding issues would preclude any development.

Site 5 End of Cloweswood Lane

Identified as possible site in District Council landscape study. Not within the general boundary of the village and could effect openness of the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this using...