Middleton Cheney Neighbourhood Plan Meeting - May 2019

1. Welcome Middleton Cheney Neighbourhood Plan Meeting May 2019

2. Agenda • Apologies for absence VF • Minutes of previous meeting April 23rd – Approval AY • Housing needs survey AY/TR • Agree suitable consultancy to deliver • Formulate brief • Review criteria to assess housing sites AY/TR • Affordable Housing Provision AY • Active Land Promotion AY • Anticipated Referendum timescale - Review  AY/TR • A.O.B. All • Date of next meeting AY

3. 3 - Housing Needs Survey Agree suitable consultancy to deliver survey Formulate brief for consultants

4. Local Housing Need • South Northamptonshire Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2015-18 • Rural Housing • The importance of rural sustainability should not be under-estimated. As highlighted in Priority 1, affordability is a significant issue in the rural areas where house prices are significantly higher than the market towns. Some villages require more homes that are affordable to local people to meet local need, prevent younger people and families moving away and to protect vital services such as schools and shops disappearing from the communities. However, our policy remains to protect what is special about the district therefore new affordable homes in rural areas would need to be focused on meeting local need, high quality, comply with planning policy relating to village confines and pay attention to conservation areas and village design statements.

5. Local Housing Need • South Northamptonshire CouncilPlanning Policy and Regeneration Strategy Committee 20 January 2016 • Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendations • 3.1  This report sets out that: • The Council has effectively met the housing targets for both the urban and rural areas as set out in the WNJCS • The Council will exceed the figure particularly in the rural areas to meet local needs • There is a need to plan for starter homes and self-build plots • There is a need to boost the supply of affordable housing in the District • There is a need for smaller house sizes in the District

6. Local Housing Need • Middleton Cheney Parish - Housing Sites & Monitoring information • Summary and Conclusions: • Middleton Cheney is one of the most sustainable villages within the district and is identified as a Primary Service Village. The Neighbourhood Plan should seek to plan for a housing requirement of between 0*-150 to take into account additional commitments in the village since 1st April 2015. However, due to the majority of past development being ‘speculative’, the Policy team do not consider it sustainable to continue to roll forward unplanned increases in the housing requirement, without considering this in the context of the wider implications on the spatial strategy for the area. As such, a range of between 0-73 is considered most appropriate and consistent with the current adopted and emerging Local Plan.

7. Local Housing Need • Identifying an indicative housing figure April 2019 • In the absence of a detailed housing needs (carried out for a robust housing need assessment) the Neighbourhood Plan should seek to identify a site to accommodate between 0 – 124 homes in the period 2018-2029 (11 years). • Once the housing requirement for the rural areas has been met, Policy R1 states development will only be permitted where it would result in environmental improvements (e.g. use of previously developed land or high quality design) or support the retention or improvement to essential local services. One way in which developments can come forward is where they are agreed through an adopted (or ‘made’) Neighbourhood Plan.

8. Identifying an indicative housing figure April 2019 • The reason for this significant range is due to a number of sites that were brought forward on allocated sites (1997 Local Plan), but also those that came forward under the Interim Rural Housing Policy. The upper figure is based on past delivery rates and projected these forward. A lower figure, based around natural growth (sites that have come forward separately) and a pro-rate requirement that is based on the assumptions that underpin the WNJCS may be more acceptable locally. The policy team do not consider it sustainable to continue to roll forward unplanned increases in the housing requirements, without considering this in the context of the wider implications on the spatial strategy for the area. As such a range of between 0-124 is considered most appropriate and consistent with the current adopted and emerging Local Plan. • A residual requirement of 0 does not, in the view of the planning policy team, equate to a moratorium on development for a particular settlement and should not be interpreted as such. If considering a figure of 0, independent evidence should be prepared to demonstrate that all housing needs are currently being met, including needs for affordable housing. • Note: 0 is used to indicate Local Housing Needs only. E.g. as assessed through a housing needs survey.

9. 4 - Review criteria to assess housing sites Identify the criteria that we will use to assess potential development sites Need to evolve along with the plan making process How the site assessment criteria relates to the sustainability appraisal process Starting point for discussion amongst the neighbourhood plan group, and the wider village

10. Housing 1: How would development of the site help meet the specific housing needs of the village, including a provision of the following types and tenure of homes? • Market housing at a price that is affordable compared to local wages • Affordable housing (in line with government’s definition of affordable housing) • Smaller properties designed for first time buyers, particularly those with a strong local connection to the village • Properties designed for elderly people’s needs • Plots for people wanting to build their own home 2: How would the site’s development encourage the efficient use of land? • What densities can be achieved on the site? • Is the site Greenfield (undeveloped) or Brownfield (previously developed)?

11. Economy 3: How would development of the site help meet the specific commercial or business needs of the village? • What type of employment uses would be appropriate for this site, given its location? • How would the site’s development contribute to South Northamptonshire’s business plan to support our key employment sectors of High Performance Technology, Logistics, Food and Drink and the Visitor Economy? • If the site is brownfield, is the existing use still appropriate? Could the site be redeveloped to accommodate more, or different employment uses? 4: How would development of the site encourage working from home / remote working? • If the site includes homes, how would the homes be designed to accommodate this? • Is there capacity to introduce high speed broadband connections – both business and residential? • Can the development provide a communal / publicly accessible remote working venue? Examples of this could include the Engine Shed in Bristol. • South Northamptonshire Economic Growth Strategy: file:///C:/Users/Thomas%20Rice/Downloads/Economic_growth_strategy_2016_2019.pdf • Speed criteria for internet speeds to be determined (e.g. set criteria of a minimum of “X megabytes per second”

12. Landscape 5: Does the site form part of a “valued landscape”? Criteria for a valued landscape will be defined as follows: • Is the landscape in good quality?   • How rare is the landscape? Is it internationally unique, or is it locally significant? • How representative of the wider landscape is the site? • Does the site contribute to conservation – of either the built environment, or the natural environment? • Is the site publicly accessible via public rights of way, or through general public access? • How well used is this public right of way (surveys may be needed during key times – e.g. am/pm dog walkers, and summer / Easter holidays. • What do the public use the site for? • Will need to refine in light of High Court decision on valued landscapes (Para 16 onward): • http://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CALA-Homes-APP4-Matter-V.pdf

13. Is the site visible from public viewpoints, if so: • To what extent does the site dominate the view from the public viewpoint? • What are the physical attributes on this site that make it distinguished or unique? • Are there are any large, or old trees on the site? • Are there any water features on the site? • Does the plant life or grassland provide a picturesque view? • How do people perceive the site? How is it enjoyed by the public? (look at senses of smell, sound, touch etc..) • Do people associate the site with something significant? (this could be an event, an author, a painting etc.)

14. 6: Would development of the site negatively affect any of the criteria identified under the above question? 7: Should the site be designated as a protected landscape in the neighbourhood plan? 8: What are the results of the landscape assessment for this site? (TO BE CONFIRMED – CONSULTANT WILL BE NEEDED) 9: If the site is developed, what are the key landscape views that need to be retained?

15. Ecology 10: Is the site part of a designated ecological site? • Internationally significant site? (Ramsar Site, Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area) • Nationally significant site? (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) • Locally designated site? 11: What are the results of the ecological survey for this site? (TO BE CONFIRMED – CONSULTANT WILL BE NEEDED) 12: Are there any veteran trees or ancient woodland on the site? Would development of the site result in their loss? 13: Is there any “non-designated” biodiversity value to the site? This will include the presence of non-protected species or habitats. 14: If the site is developed, how could the biodiversity value of the site be at worst conserved, and at best enhanced?

16. Pollution 15: How would development of the site contribute to improving air quality in the village? Does it currently form an important open space that already assists in keeping air quality good? 16: How would development of the site affect light pollution and night sky views around the village? How could this be mitigated? 17: How would development of the site affect water quality in the surrounding area? Will it result in run offs into local water bodies (such as streams or ponds)? How could this be mitigated? 18: Will the site’s existing or previous uses likely to have caused ground contamination issues? 19: Are neighbouring land uses sensitive to pollution?

17. Flooding 20: Is the site subject to fluvial (river) or surface water flooding? Information can be sourced from the government’s website, or local evidence (such as photographs or reported incidents). 21: Would the site’s development result in increased flood risk elsewhere? How could this be mitigated? https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/confirm-location?easting=449942&northing=241794&placeOrPostcode=middleton%20cheney

18. Climate change and resource efficiency 22: How would the site’s development make efficient use of water? What technologies could be employed as part of the development (such as water butts, or other rainwater recycling measures, or managed demands within the new homes)? 23: How would the site’s development make efficient use of sunlight? How can the development maximise solar gain (i.e. maximising the number of south facing roofs for solar panels, or south facing gardens and living areas) 24: How could the site’s development provide locally generated energy? (e.g. solar panels, wind turbines on homes etc) 25: How would development of the site minimise the needs of people to travel by private car?

19. Community facilities 26: Would the site’s development result in the loss of a community facility – if so, can this be replaced by a facility of equal or better standards? 27: Could the site provide for a new community facility? Infrastructure criteria 28: Would the site’s development result impact negatively on the local highway network? 29: Would the site’s development provide for sufficient utilities connections (water, gas, electricity, and broadband), without adversely affecting services in the village?

20. 5 - Affordable Housing Provision

21. Middleton House (2 Main Road) Conversion of a vacant office building (Use Class B1) to 11 apartments (Use Class C3) including internal and external alterations, widening of existing access from Main Road, associated parking, and demolition of existing glass house. Proposed 4 dwellings (Use Class C3), widening of existing access and all other ancillary or enabling works.

22. Applicant Statement AFFORDABLE HOUSING STATEMENT • Policy H2 (Affordable Housing) of the Adopted West Northamptonshire Core Strategy requires a contribution to affordable housing on schemes of 5 or more dwellings. • As the two schemes together provide 15 dwellings, they will, if taken together, be required to deliver a contribution to affordable housing in line with Policy H2. • Given the small scale of the scheme and the fact it is predominately a flatted scheme utilising a heritage asset, it is considered in this instance an off-site contribution would be appropriate. The fact the development is for a small number of units comprising of apartments in a listed building and dwellings with high build and maintenance costs would present problems for a registered provider to manage and fully utilise and affordable housing provided on-site. This therefore meets the exceptional circumstances test set out in Policy H2. The level of contribution will be agreed with the Council to meet the tests set out in the Policy while reflecting the viability on the Site. Connells Development Viability Report: • Our appraisals of the scheme, both of the 100% private sale and also with onsite affordable housing provision are included within this report. It can clearly be seen that with a scheme of 100% private housing, the scheme is viable but marginally so. If onsite affordable housing was required then the scheme quickly becomes unviable.

23. SNC Housing Strategy and Partnerships Team response Strategic Fit • South Northamptonshire Council’s 5 Year Priorities 2014 – 15 included the commitment to “work with partners to deliver a mix of high quality affordable housing in appropriate locations to meet local need” (C7). Within the annual business plan 2014-15 one of the key actions to secure a prosperous and sustainable future was to increase the delivery of affordable housing above current levels and invest in affordable housing initiatives. Delivery of new affordable housing in this location would continue to contribute to these aims. • This application is within the village confines and proposes conversion of an existing building used as offices to residential usage, by providing flats for open market sale. • Further comments on the principle of development on this site will be made by the Planning Policy Team of the council. Notwithstanding these and without prejudice, the following comments are made in the event that the development is considered acceptable in planning terms. Housing Needs • The West Northamptonshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2010 highlights the increasing shortfall of affordable housing across West Northamptonshire. A recent update to the SHMA demonstrates a district wide requirement of 3300 affordable dwellings by 2029. The SHMA and local housing needs indicate that between 173 and 182 new affordable homes are required per annum. • In 2007, the council completed a parish level housing need survey in Middleton Cheney to identify the requirement for affordable housing. This identified a strong need for affordable housing for local people. Since this time, a number of mixed tenure residential developments have been completed in the parish, which have helped to address this housing need. • In order to give an indication of the current level of affordable housing need in Middleton Cheney Parish, I have assessed those applicants’ on the council’s Housing Register who have selected Middleton Cheney as a place they would be prepared to consider being rehoused. This is a ‘live’ list and is subject to regular change. As of today’s date there are 44 applicants who have selected Middleton Cheney Parish. • Of the 44 households, 11 have a local connection to Middleton Cheney Parish. Households demonstrating local connections to the parish are normally given priority in allocation of any affordable housing. • The council’s Housing Register shows the need for rental accommodation only. The register for those interested in shared ownership properties is held by the local Home Buy agent for the East Midlands, HelptoBuy Midlands. This shows a good demand for shared ownership properties in the South Northamptonshire district.

24. SNC Housing Strategy and Partnerships Team response Housing Mix • The council’s Affordable Housing Policy as set out in the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (Policy H2), states that on sites with mixed tenure residential development of 11 dwellings or more, 50% of the total provision should be provided as affordable housing in rural areas of the district; this includes Middleton Cheney. The council’s policy also states that 75% of the affordable housing units should be provided as rented accommodation and 25% as intermediate housing (usually shared ownership). As a last resort and/or where the council considers that affordable housing delivery might prove problematic on site, the council will seek an off-site financial contribution in lieu of on-site affordable housing delivery, to enable affordable housing delivery elsewhere in the locality. • The housing mix in this proposal provides for 11 flats for open market sale. This housing mix does not therefore contain any affordable housing provision. However, previous discussions with active housing association partners in the district have established that this type of development does not lend itself well to on-site affordable housing provision. In the circumstances, the housing team are agreeable to negotiating an off-site financial contribution to be paid by the applicant, in lieu of on-site delivery. • If the current application for 4 residential dwellings for market sale in the grounds of the existing building (S/2018/1708/FUL) is considered acceptable, then these additional dwellings should also be taken into account when calculating the financial contribution due to the council. The basis for negotiation would therefore be the loss of 10 affordable housing dwellings in total across both sites. • The housing team has already approached the applicant in this regard and we await further dialogue. Conclusion • The Housing Strategy & Partnerships Team has no objection to this proposal, subject to an appropriate financial settlement being reached with the applicant for the loss of affordable housing. • We would ask that this negotiation is concluded as part of the planning application process and before any decision on the granting of planning permission is made.

25. Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) "Affordable Housing" • means social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market and as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019; "Affordable Housing Contribution" • means the sum of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND ONE POUNDS (£133,701) to be paid to the District Council in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 towards the provision of Affordable Housing in South Northamptonshire;

26. 6 - Active Land Promotion Updates on current land promotions New developer / landowner proposals

28. Active Land Promotions • Site #6 – Land East of Waters Lane (Catesby Estates) • Site #11 – Land at Main Road (Landowner) • Site #16 – Land at Astrop Road (Mr Mobley) • Site #25 – Land at Banbury Lane (Barwood Land) • Site #26 – Land off Glovers Lane (Lagan Homes)

29. Site #25 – Land at Banbury Lane Barwood Land has a promotion agreement with the owners of site #25, we discussed a potential scenario for the relocation and re-provision of an improved and enlarged sports and community facility which, subject to reaching an agreement around the existing sports and recreation ground, could be brought forward: 1.     relocated and expanded football, cricket and tennis facilities could be provided on site 25, fronting Banbury Lane, together with vehicular access (from Banbury Lane), car parking and a community hub building (including changing rooms, social club and community hall). All these facilities would also be accessible on foot via existing footpath links from the village centre; 2.     approximately 100 dwellings would then be accommodated on the balance of the land at site 25; a development would provide affordable housing in line with SNC’s policy (currently 50%). The housing mix and tenures would take account of local housing needs but could include a range of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses/bungalows and be tailored to meet the specific needs of Middleton Cheney residents (e.g. starter homes, down sizers, bungalows, etc.); 3.     the above would also involve a land swap or other legal arrangement between Barwood Land and the owners of the existing village playing fields (site 17, understood to be some 6 acres or 2.4 hectares in size) enabling development of site 17 for some 50 – 60 dwellings, once the sports facilities have been relocated to Banbury Lane (such that there would be no period when the village would not have operational sports facilities). Again, the development of this land would provide affordable housing in line with SNC’s policy (currently 50%). The housing mix and tenures would take account of local housing needs but could include a range of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses/bungalows and be tailored to meet the specific needs of Middleton Cheney residents (e.g. starter homes, down sizers, bungalows, etc.). Just to confirm the existing sports ground site is approximately 7 acres in area whilst that proposed by Barwood is approximately 11 acres.

30. Site #25 - Land at Banbury Lane (Barwood Concept Masterplan)

31. Site #11 - Land at Main Road OWNERSHIP The land was previously owned by Timms Homes, a company which had, we believe, excellent relationships with the Parish Council over many years.  The land is free of any mortgages or any potential encumbrances  such as Options.  As such, we have total control of the land. I will briefly explain why we consider our land to be suitable and capable of helping Middleton Cheney accommodate the housing development which will be required by the ongoing Local Plan process:- • Albeit that the site received two adverse Appeal decisions in 2010 and 2012, it should be considered in light of the demands of the present and future times.  The main issues were landscaping and timing, and we are confident that those obstacles can be overcome.  It is worthy of note that when our site was first recommended for approval by SNC’s Planning Officers in 2010 that no objection was raised whatsoever regarding landscape issues. • The location of our site is ideal in that it has good access, is adjacent to bus routes and would cause little disturbance to the village whilst it was being developed.  There would certainly be little disturbance to neighbours to our site and we could ensure that our development is sympathetic to the neighbouring and older properties to the north.  Within the site there are no landscape features (such as trees), water courses or other such environmental constraints.  We believe that a sensitively designed scheme for our site could take into consideration the criteria, including the Landscape section,  shown in the document presented to the Open Meeting in the village on 23 April 2019. • The detail provided in our planning applications within the past decade was complete and decisive regarding such things as ecology, transport, drainage, etc. • We understand that our site may well have received fewer objections than other potential housing sites in the recent past. • Taking into consideration landscape issues, we believe that there is potential for our site to form an exciting and well-designed gateway to the village.  Our site faces modern housing and is bounded on the west and south by substantial roads.  Our site definitely forms an inverted carbuncle in the edge of the development of Middleton Cheney, and developing the land in a sensitive way could complete the logical eastern edge of the village. • There have been numerous schemes prepared in the past for the site, but we would prefer to initially present the land to you with a more ‘open’ offer of talking to the community about what it would like to get out of the site, i.e. not only the housing but facilities and amenities both on the site and outside of the land. • Importantly, our site is available and deliverable, and it is not constrained since it is firmly under our control. We have a number of very interested parties who see the potential of this site and wish to come ‘on board’, but since we are adamant that we do not wish to restrict it’s potential to interest you, we wish to promote it at this stage by ourselves.  In that way we would control the way that it is promoted, not be directed by the interests of others.  You will appreciate that we have much experience of residential development, and we are confident that we could work positively with the community to produce a very satisfactory residential development incorporating community benefits.

32. 7 - Anticipated Referendum Timescale