CONTENTS. 1. Consultation and community engagement process. 2. Initial survey. 3. Household survey. 4. Stakeholder engagement

Transcription

1

2 CONTENTS 1. Consultation and community engagement process 2. Initial survey 3. Household survey 4. Stakeholder engagement 5. Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation 6. Ongoing dialogue with Tandridge District Council Annex 1 - Community engagement work Annex 2 Initial survey findings Annex 3 Household survey findings Annex 4 - Stakeholder views Annex 5 - Regulation 14 pre-submission findings Note: within the annexes, there are links to the Limpsfield Neighbourhood Plan website ( All documents are listed under the key documents section of the website and should be easily accessible.

3 1. Consultation and community engagement process Consultations Two informal consultations (via survey) were undertaken with residents. Both surveys were available in hard copy and online and were promoted on social and other media. Orange wheelie bins were placed throughout the Parish to collect responses. Views were also sought from local businesses by means of both a tailored survey and face to face meetings. These businesses included the shops at the lower end of Station Road East in Oxted (but within Limpsfield parish), some of the businesses in Limpsfield High Street and some of those in the rural areas of the Parish (Grants Lane). In parallel other stakeholders views were sought. The pre-submission regulation 14 consultation was then carried out. Community engagement As well as engaging the community through surveys, there have been numerous articles about the Neighbourhood Plan in local parish church newsletters, other local publications and local newspapers. To boost the level of engagement during the pre-submission consultation, the Parish Council took a stall at the two annual summer fetes in the Parish, drop in sessions at Oxted Library, as well as offering drop in visits at key points in the parish. The Neighbourhood Plan has also been publicised on banners placed around the locality. It is important to note also that a great deal of effort has been made to identify the key local stakeholders and to ensure that face to face meetings take place to get an understanding of their issues and concerns. Annex 1 gives more information. 2. Initial survey The first residents survey was an open-ended set of 3 questions, the aim of which was to gain an understanding of the areas of main interest and concern to residents. This was carried out in October and November 2016, with a relatively low response rate of 10% of households. These questionnaires were available at various locations around the parish but were not put through residents doors. The main findings are set out below with quantification of the strength of feeling given at Annex 2. Protect the Green Belt don t build on it Protect the heritage and character of the Parish Protect green spaces not in the Green Belt (Glebe Field, Glebe Meadow and Brook Field) Concerns about parking and traffic speeds

4 3. Household survey The second more comprehensive household survey delivered by hand to every household in Limpsfield Parish, was carried out from 28 th March until 30 May 2017, and achieved a 30% response rate (425 out of 1439 households census). The main findings which were independently assessed by AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Limited and were as follows: 79% did not have a need for more housing in the Parish Of those who did welcome more housing, the vast majority felt smaller (3 bedrooms or less) houses/apartments, including those for the elderly were the first priority 64% wanted no development in the Green Belt under any circumstances, and a further 20% were undecided 90% considered the Green Belt setting and leafy roads/well-maintained footpaths as highly desirable 58% wanted to ensure that any new development had adequate off-street parking 88% wanted to protect local green spaces (including those outside the Green Belt e.g. Glebe Field and Glebe Meadow - 90% wanted these protected) 83% wanted see historic assets and attractions protected More health facilities and faster broadband were the two highest priorities as regards future infrastructure needs 51% supported the use of (urban) land for business development Other issues raised This extensive consultation flagged up many other issues including: A wish for a children s playground in Limpsfield village A desire for more fit for purpose bus services A more structured approach to tourism Concerns about fly-tipping and burglaries Some interest in upgrading and developing a better network of cycle-ways Annex 3 gives the link to the full analysis.

5 4. Stakeholder engagement Two rounds of informal consultation were carried out via mainly face to face meetings and some teleconferences. The key findings of both are set out below: Land owners (Diocese and Southwark, Titsey Estate and National Trust) have no plans for new development on their land, though all were interested in ways of earning more revenue from their assets. Local businesses were concerned about the lack of suitable local premises at reasonable costs, and local shops have significant concerns about crime (burglaries and shoplifting). They also have concerns about traffic congestion and parking. The Oxted Health Centre was keen to remain in Limpsfield Parish, and to expand to meet growing demand in line with Government policy for fewer and larger health facilities Historic England and Surrey CC (Heritage) supported the Parish Council s approach to the externally funded character and heritage study, and welcomed the possibility of a Conservation Area Appraisal being carried out Surrey Highways recognised the need to better controls of HGV traffic and traffic speeds The Environment Agency confirmed level 2 and 3 flood plain risks in both the Brook and Glebe fields they also wanted to ensure that the two water source protection zones are logged and protected. National Trust were interested in the best way to protect the local environment The local Infant School had concerns about traffic speeds and crime Annex 4 gives the link for the full information and detail of this work. Statutory consultants as determined by Tandridge District Council were then invited to respond to the Strategic Environmental Assessment and the pre-submission regulation 14 consultation, as set out in section 5 below.

6 5. Regulation 14 Pre-submission consultation The formal pre-submission draft of the Limpsfield Neighbourhood Plan was undertaken from 12 June until Monday 23 July. All residents and all local businesses were provided with a summary of the Neighbourhood Plan Policies (by hand delivery), and an associated comments form/questionnaire with all supporting information on the website. As with the previous consultations, all information was available online and responses could be made via a survey monkey, which was heavily promoted through social media. Hard copy replies were collected from the now well recognised orange wheelie bins placed at key locations throughout the parish. Annex 5 sets out the detail of the findings of this consultation.

7 6. Ongoing dialogue with Tandridge District Council From the outset, the Neighbourhood Plan Coordinator has established a regular dialogue with Tandridge District Council to ensure that they were fully aware and involved at every stage, and as the Plan has evolved, these meetings have included members of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group including its Chairman. There have been over 10 such meetings during the process to date from July 2016 to June 2018, in addition to regular and phone contact. These dialogues have been fruitful and have allowed for a frank exchange of views This will ensure that the Limpsfield Neighbourhood Plan and the Tandridge Local Plan have been developed in step, with the former providing the local detail and the latter the overarching strategic direction.

8 Annex 1 - Community Engagement Work Below are examples of the various initiatives taken to encourage community engagement including the first survey, household survey and regulation 14 pre-submission consultation. One of the Orange wheelie bins in situ near the Limpsfield Village Memorial Stores used to collect paper responses during the three surveys/consultations. An example of the banners used to promote the 3 surveys.

9 LIMPSFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN UPDATE AUTUMN 2017 Thank you to all the Limpsfield residents who completed and returned the Limpsfield Neighbourhood Plan Residents Survey. In total, Limpsfield Parish Council received 450 completed surveys using the online portal or written submissions deposited in the ubiquitous orange wheelie bins. There is a formal procedure and timetable that has to be followed when preparing a Neighbourhood Plan. In summary, the survey results are now being analysed and this information will then be used as the basis for drawing up preliminary policies and a draft Neighbourhood Plan. This work will be undertaken over the next six months by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (which consists of 4 Limpsfield Parish Councillors and 6 Limpsfield residents), the specific Topic Groups which have been looking at four key policy areas and the consultants engaged by the parish council to assist in the Neighbourhood Plan process. A draft of the Neighbourhood Plan will be put out for public consultation, before review by Tandridge District Council and a Government Planning Inspector. At the end of this process, before the final Neighbourhood Plan can be adopted, the plan has to be put to Limpsfield residents in a public referendum. The referendum is likely to take place in May 2019, on the same day as the local council elections. When adopted the Limpsfield Neighbourhood Plan, will form part of the local planning framework, it will also have identified specific projects important to Limpsfield residents which the Parish Council will work to see delivered. For further information on the Limpsfield Neighbourhood Plan, please visit the website Mark Wilson Chairman Limpsfield Parish Council Autumn 2017 Example of an article placed in local media (in this case Oxted Local which is received by all Limpsfield residents and wider following the household survey)

10 We placed numerous update articles in a range of local publications including; Oxted Local, County Border News, Chart News, St Peters Church Parish Newsletter, pew sheets in St Andrew s, Limpsfield Chart, as well as in the annual parish newsletter which is delivered to all households in the parish every year To boost the response the household survey, a reminder leaflet was produced of these were delivered, together with house to house contact, resulting in a very high response rate (35% of all households) to the household survey To raise the profile of the regulation 14 consultation, the Parish Council took a stall at both the Limpsfield village fete and Limpsfield Chart fair in the summer of 2018, We undertook the following promotional activities to support the Reg 14 consultation,

11 At the Limpsfield Village Fete, there were 65 contacts and at the Limpsfield Chart Fair 57 contacts There were also two drop-in sessions at Oxted Library 6 contacts at each. To support the regulation 14 consultation there were also some banners see below:

12 A summary of the regulation 14 Plan and comment form was delivered to every household - see below: The regulation 14 consultation comments form which accompanied this summary can be viewed at

13 Annex 2 Initial Survey Findings Green Belt Affordable Housing Other Housing Parking Traffic Community assets and infrastructure Village Street Scene Total Main Issues % 9% 7% 9% 25% 14% 27% Main Suggestions % 9% 3% 16% 32% 22% 10% Note: On issues there were 13 mentioning other issues On suggestions - there were 14 mentioning other ideas This initial survey showed that residents have more concerns and interest in parking and traffic than on housing. (this was borne out in the Household survey because there is no great enthusiasm for new housing other than for smaller and more affordable housing) The other issue which emerged was that of protecting the street scene (which is linked with on street parking) and protecting the Green Belt. This initial survey helped guide the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group to the design of the second more extensive (Household) survey. A fuller analysis of this initial survey is held on the (paper) evidence file.

14 Annex 3 Household Survey Findings The analysis of the findings was produced by AECOM UK ltd and is available at:

15 Annex 4 - Stakeholder views There is a comprehensive list of informal stakeholder consultation and views before embarking on the pre-submission regulation 14 consultation at: There was a significant effort to engage local businesses, who consequently highlighted a number of issues: Lack of parking and increased costs of it, making it difficult to attract customers, and retain staff Crime especially a concern from shops on Station Road East in Oxted (in Limpsfield Parish) Lack of affordable premises for local businesses with suitable facilities (which includes good broadband and road access)

16 Annex 5 - Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation findings RESIDENTS REPLIES Copies of the comments form were delivered to all households in the parish and a shade over 150 replies were received, representing 10% of all households. We have also had 13 responses from Local Organisations via the statutory consultation, including some replies to Local Green Space designation proposals. These comments have been assessed and changes made accordingly. Residents were asked for their views on the 16 policies being proposed. Residents overwhelmingly agreed with the polices, with over 80% in agreement of all policies in some cases the agreement level was over 90%. For example, the Local Heritage Assets policy was 95%, and support for the conservation area 93%. The key area where there were disagreements are: Spatial Policy (9%), where the policy has been further clarified Housing Development in the built-up urban area (12%) where the policy has been slightly refined Housing Mix Policy -LNP3 (9%) where this has been revised taking on board comments from TDC as well The proposed list of Local Green Spaces (10%), where this list has now been reduced, taking out the proposed Local Green Space near Boulthurst Way and also the field below Pastens Road, where in both cases the land-owners objected. A view also endorsed by a number of residents. The landowner (Diocese of Southwark) has also objected the proposed Local Green Space designation of the Glebe field and Glebe meadow. However, given the very strong local support for those Local Green Space designations, these are being left in the plan and the case for them has been strengthened. Also, whilst there were not many additional comments from residents (most of which were from those completing the survey monkey), these clustered around: Concerns about parking particularly in Limpsfield village Concerns that there is a shortage of smaller homes, and in particular affordable housing Support for the local health centre to stay where it is and for it to expand Concerns to protect the green belt and local green spaces, though negative comments about protecting the land near Boulthurst Way and the field below Pastens Road (see above) Support to improve the quality and number of footpaths and pavements Support for a Limpsfield village playground Support for the parish policy to improve broadband in Limpsfield Chart

17 A full summary of the residents response can be found at: A detailed analysis of the residents responses is also available at: STATUTORY STAKLEHOLDER REPLIES There were relatively few responses from the statutory stakeholders, but these can be summarised below: Natural England (NE) - noted that there are designated sites or protected landscapes within or near the Neighbourhood Plan area but the Plan does not allocate any additional sites for development NE also recommended that on Policy LNP6: Landscape Character the NP mentions the relevant paragraphs in the NPPF to support this policy, notably paragraph 115 and 116. NE also recommended that Policy LNP 14: Sustainable Transport, Access & Car Parking that proposals which integrate Green Infrastructure measures should also be considered, especially those that commit to footpath and green open space creation/enhancement in the Parish. NE also drew attention to the requirement to conserve biodiversity and provide a net gain in biodiversity through planning policy (Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and section 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework) and to ensure that any development policy in the plan includes wording to ensure all development results in a biodiversity net gain for the parish. NE also highlighted that removal of green space in favour of development may have serious impacts on biodiversity and connected habitat and therefore species ability to adapt to climate change. NE recommend that the final local plan includes: Policies around connected Green Infrastructure (GI) within the parish. Elements of GI such as open green space, wild green space, allotments, and green walls and roofs can all be used to create connected habitats suitable for species adaptation to climate change. Green infrastructure also provides multiple benefits for people including recreation, health and wellbeing, access to nature, opportunities for food growing, and resilience to climate change. Policies around Biodiversity Net Gain should propose the use of a biodiversity measure for development proposals. NE provided good practice examples of the above.

18 Screening Request: Strategic Environmental Assessment - NE s advice, on the basis of the material supplied with the consultation, that, in so far as their strategic environmental interests are concerned (including but not limited to statutory designated sites, landscapes and protected species, geology and soils) are concerned, that there are unlikely to be significant environmental effects from the proposed plan. Historic England (HE) - felt the draft neighbourhood plan provides an appropriate framework for protecting and enhancing the historic environment and heritage assets of the parish and they support the relevant policies; viz. policies LNP4 7. They note that a Parish Heritage and Character Assessment has been prepared in support of the plan and provides an appropriate evidence base for the policies within it. HE also flagged some further helpful contacts as regards heritage to further enhance the plan. HE had no specific comments to make on the SEA, which they are happy to endorse as far as it relates to our areas of interest. Environment Agency (EA) made comments on a number of areas Groundwater protection EA had no detailed comments in relation to groundwater protection and contaminated land to make in reference to the Neighbourhood Plan. SEA - given the vulnerability of the groundwater in the area of the proposed neighbourhood plan, being within Source Protection Zones, EA would expect groundwater protection to be considered within the assessment and be listed as an environmental issue (Section 4.2 of the SEA). Flood Risk Limpsfield is located in the upper catchment of the River Eden and is subject to river flooding from the River Eden, as well as surface water flooding. The areas at risk are illustrated on the EA online flood mapping. During the winter of 2013/14 there were a number of instances of road closures and internal property flooding in the Limpsfield area. The sub area is not located within the EA Flood Warning or Flood Alert Areas. Development within flood risk areas (flood zones 2 and 3 FZ2, FZ3) should be avoided. Development should be directed to areas of flood zone 1 (FZ1). Where a development falls within FZ2 or 3 or the site is greater than one hectare in FZ1, any planning application must be supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA). Brook Field LGS 2: This site is located within areas designated as Flood Zone 2 and 3, the site also plays an important role as floodplain for the Eden, providing flood storage and habitat. EA provided minor text clarifications. SEA EA agrees with the conclusions of the SEA.

19 Southern Water - although Southern Water have no current plans, over the life of the Neighbourhood Plan, they felt it may be that they would need to provide new or improved infrastructure either to serve new development and/or to meet stricter environmental standards. They felt it is important to have policy provision in the Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to meet these requirements. And they proposed an amendment referenced the NPPF. Surrey County Council (SCC) - makes comments about highways and heritage: Highways SCC It may be helpful to refer to both Surrey County Council Parking Standards, in addition to TDC Parking standards. This could further strengthen policies LNP2, LNP10 and LNP14 and help to provide adequate parking provision within planning applications. Within Appendix E under Transport and Communications, point 6a says To secure improvements to the local travel infrastructure, making the Parish s roads safer for all users and reducing the effects of through traffic, including HGVs. It may be helpful to give examples of how this will be achieved or if there is a preferred routing, however it is understood that keeping the policy flexible may be better. In any event, we would welcome partnership working with Surrey Highways alongside other key stakeholders. Heritage SCC are pleased to read that a review of Limpsfield s archaeological assets will be undertaken in the future, with a view to adding them to the local lists. SCC offered to assist with this through their Historic Environment Record. In addition to the varying historic environment issues and built heritage covered in the AECOM Character Assessment, SCC wondered if some thought be given to local heritage assets such as veteran trees and/or hedgerows. SCC felt these could be included when they survey the archaeological assets to create a more holistic Local List. SCC also felt the design section (policies LNP4, LNP5 & LNP6) might also recognise that innovative or carefully-sited/designed modern buildings of a different character can also enhance/respect and offset older more traditional features. Effective conservation area management can sometimes allow areas to become enhanced by the best that each period has to offer. Surrey Wildlife Trust - welcomed Policy LNP 9: Promoting Biodiversity, especially with regards to its specific reference to the advice of the Surrey Nature Partnership. However, they felt in comparison with other Surrey emerging Neighbourhood Plans, this area of policy would appear somewhat light in scope. They asserted that such plans often take this opportunity to list and reiterate relevant Local Plan policy protecting their Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI); as well as any potential wildlife corridors and stepping stone sites. Information on SNCI in Tandridge is available from the District Council as well as the Surrey Biodiversity Information Centre. In Limpsfield Parish which then then listed Transport for London replied to the consultation but offered no comments.

20 Tandridge District Council Finally, Tandridge District Council has made several sets of comments as part of the con ongoing close dialogue as in detailed above in section 6. LOCAL GREEN SPACES PROPOSALS LANDOWNER REPLIES It is also important to record that a number of Land owners objected to the proposal for their land being designated as a Local Green Space: OBJECTIONS Glebe Field and Glebe Meadow the Diocese of Southwark, whilst having no current plans to development this land, objected to Local Green Space designation as this would rule out development for all time, which would be an unwise business decision for them, in their view. Land next to Boulthurst Way playground the Landowner objected as they felt that should a developer offer them the right deal, it was a matter for them to decide on whether they would wish to take this opportunity forward, and that a Local Green Space designation would effectively remove their rights over their own land. THIS LOCAL GREEN SPACE PROPOSAL WILL BE WITHDRAWN Fields near Pains Hill and Pastens road - The main principle behind the objection by the landowner (Sutton and South East Water) is to protect their position in the event that they need to develop the land for operational or other purposes because of a need to secure or provide increased capacity in the water supply network. However, in the current Water Resources Management Plan there is no scheme for this land, but the plan is fluid and subject to change upon the needs of customers and demands upon the water supply network. THIS LOCAL GREEN SPACE PROPOSAL WILL BE WITHDRAWN NO OBJECTIONS Brook Field the Land agent of the land owner has confirmed no objection. Tidy s Green no response received, no Landowner objection. Land near Pebble Hill no response received, supported by the National Trust (the landowner). Land Opposite the Carpenters Arms no response received. No Landowner objection. Land in front of Hookwood Bungalows - no response received. No Landowner objection. Stanhopes Village Green owned by Limpsfield Parish Council Padbrook Pond unable to identify landowner - landowner unknown to HM Land Registry.