SHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES Feedback on Draft Policies5 January 2015 The policies...

SHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIESFeedback on Draft Policies 5 January 2015The policies were formulated from feedback from the village from the February 2015 Open day and the Questionnaire submitted in August 2015. The policies were discussed at the Neighbourhood Plan meetings open to the general public and the formulated and discussed with Milton Keynes Council Planners. He policies were then revised to incorporate guidance from Milton Keynes.Written feedback – Issued 18 / 19 Dec 2015 to 5 Jan 2016

A document was issued to the Parish to every dwelling explaining the Neighbourhood Plan Draft Policies and requesting clear feedback comments and

to vote Agree / Neutral / Disagree against each of the policies.

Executive summary - All submitted Policies CarriedOn line feedback – Opened 30 Nov 2015 – to 5 Jan 2016

internet access was also arranged to allow voting to be made on line.

Executive summary - All submitted Policies CarriedAudit – written feedback Voting on policies audited by Edward Caldwell Sherington Parish Councillor 6 Jan 2016 (ver 3)

Doc Ver 2 draft submission to Sherington Parish Council meeting 5 January 2016Doc Ver 3 amended & audited version of written feedback 6 January 2016Doc Ver 4 Updated on line feedback to 5th Jan 2015 and comments received 21 January 2016

of 21

Printed by Sherington Neighbourhood Plan Group for Sherington Parish Council 21 Jan 2015 Ver 4

[A1] Issued Document for written feedback - explanation / guidanceSHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES

of 21


[A1] Issued Document for written feedback - feedback response form

SHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES

of 21


[A2] Issued Document for written feedback – Voting AnalysisResults audited by Edward Caldwell Sherington Parish Councillor 6 Jan 2016


Policy

Agree 68 88% 58 75% 47 61% 60 78% 70 91% 55 71%Neutral 6 8% 10 13% 11 14% 5 6% 4 5% 9 12%Disagree 3 4% 7 9% 16 21% 10 13% 1 1% 13 17%No response 0 0% 2 3% 3 4% 2 3% 2 3% 0 0%Total 77 100% 77 100% 77 100% 77 100% 77 100% 77 100%

CARRIED CARRIED CARRIED CARRIED CARRIED CARRIED

Encourage and support existing and suitable new, small scale service businesses…..

Protect the fabric and setting of Sherington Parish’s Heritage and Community Assets…

Designate the fields , see map at schedule Z of NP, which constitute the Historic Green Heart of Sherington as a Green Space,…

Require prospective Developers to engage in constructive dialogue with the PC……..

Ensure that new housing developments are of a scale that can reasonably be expected to become an integral part of the Village….

Support sensitive, small scale housing development of between 20 and 24 new dwellings

SH1H3H2H1B1A1

of 21


[A2] Issued Document for written feedback - Summary CommentsSHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES

? E-Mail comment sent to <Name redacted - N Plan Chairman> regarding 'transport'.

?? Would like to see development outside the village in one area rather than small developments in the village.

?? Congratulations to the steering group who have managed to condense the many response to the original questionnaire into such a concise statement of policies

?? We are very concerned with all the recent planning applications for houses that seem to be increasing by the minute! Including the two Souls fields which surely are way to out of the village!! Please we need the houses (if any) "within the village in small developments. We feel once one development is started its a matter of time for many more.

?? I am very concerned that Milton Keynes Council has the power to override any of the decisions made by the Parish council. One of my major concerns as well is the volume of traffic going through the village and the tailbacks on the by-pass. The issue of traffic can only become more serious because of the huge housing expansions in Olney & Newport Pagnell. Also the pressure on services especially the heath service can only become more serious. I hope that Sherington Parish Council will be parts of the legal process against |MK Council.

?? I think that the contracts for house building should include provision / financial help for a purpose built shop and / or extension of the village hall.

?? see attachment

?? We need to know where individual sites are going to be, also I would rather see infill in the middle of the village than extending the village out further.

?? I call heart of the village the Knoll. Monument field would be a wonderful site to keep heritage going for a historical place

?? The document does not address concerns raised by residents regarding drainage and footway / cycle infrastructure. Whereas I know about "pledges". I don't know how anyone else will know. Furthermore this may not be the best time to send this out with people "switched off" for holiday period.

?? We found the graphics used in the document unclear, despite much time spent at the web site. Some referenced schedule could not be sound and pages would not load up so difficult to research the detail.. He graphics / artwork are too involved to make clear B/W printing with decent contrast and most alienate other villagers.

?? Would like to see policy on renewable energy.

?? If MK Council has a quota / number of houses to fulfil of 40+ in the next few years then we should look at one development location on outskirts of the village and not several smaller developments which will take up more of the village & cause more issues.

?? Perhaps due to my stupidity the map below seems unclear & unorientated.

?? Village shop to be improved and remain in current location.

of 21



Any developments should include genuine starter homes (not social housing) that are affordable to young people living in Sherington or other SCAN villages.

Properties in Sherington are so expensive now we seems to be attracting rich buyers who care little for our village.

The most important plan should be to build smallish 2 bed house for children of parents who live in the village. 1st time buyers or even flats Most important not blocks just High St ones.

"Housing" why not be supportive of housing developments of 15 houses or more that will trigger inclusion of affordable houses only.

We think that the 'shoulder of mutton' field - presently the subject of a planning application, should be included in SH1

A matter of opinion

I am sceptical about the community being able to retain Sherington Parish's Heritage in the light of Milton Keynes Plan

General comments apply to all above headings. In parallel to your Sherington Neighbourhood Plan, as you know, MK Council are considering and consulting upon much larger developments of the whole of the MK district area. Some of the proposals affect Sherington in a very big way. The consequences of non coherent actions are confusion and the production of numerous extra planning applications. Survey both plans should be at least be considered by both groups.

As long as A1 applies also

The village needs small scale manufacturing - If the business units in Water Lane are to become residential what happens to the existing businesses.

Business: No definition of "Suitable". Why only service industries - should the plan exclude light engineering / manufacturing? Surely it is the scale and pollution that are the criteria (pollution in the widest aspects)

Would like to see a community wind and solar energy project set up for the benefit of the village.

Emphasis to be given to sensitive location of appropriate business supportive of local community

We could support a policy that discriminates against small scale manicuring!

Depends on individual proposals

"Business" I am supportive of change of use of buildings for future alternative business but not in favour of change of use of land for solar farms that does not benefit the village.

We support the use of the Brownfield site in Water Lane for housing. Although we are not sure if this conflicts with policy B1 as it is difficult to see if any of the businesses at Smiths yards would easily locate anywhere suitable in the village.

Not sure of the connection between H1 and H2

No reference to limiting development within the village boundary of 21



Are any of the proposed building areas to contain 2/3 bed starter homes to encourage young people in our village? Would support 20 / 24 in H1 if I thought the homes would be affordable.

In total (see H2) Needs a time scale to be truly meaningful.

Are H1 + H2 complimentary? That is 2*12 new housing developments (H2) equals a total of 24 new properties (H1).

It is important that Sherington does not become either a satellite of Milton Keynes or an overspill for social housing.

In total

Only if 1/3 at least are 2 bedroom premises for 1st time buyers

H1 and SH1 - these 2 policies appear to target the same objective, i.e.. Seeing no development on the fields as designated on the map. This area has been given the historic Green Heart, but apart from occasional dog walkers in 'Masons field, these fields appear to be private land and are not accessible to the residents of Sherington - therefore how can this be described as the heart of Sherington? Given no one can access these fields, and d the majority of the residents cannot appreciate the views, what is this large chunk of land being preserved for? Would it be better to provide new housing where there is space, so as not to cram them in between existing developments to the detriments of bother the new house owners and the existing Sherington residents?

Confused between H1 and H2 reads as if the NP supports a development of 20 to 24 dwellings - not total?

Not clear that 20 / 24 is total for village

How is the village going to stay as a village if MKC decide to engulf it within MK?

Sherington population is aging & therefore possibilities of citizens downsizing to appropriate sized dwellings is required.

Sherington can cope with more than 24 dwellings and more that 12 on any development.

We support the use of the Brownfield site in Water Lane for housing. Although we are not sure if this conflicts with policy B1 as it is difficult to see if any of the businesses at Smiths yards would easily locate anywhere suitable in the village.

If only small scale developments are allowed there will not be any planning gain from developers e.g. permanent shop / social housing / archive centre for historical data.

Proposed scheme of housing near Tumulus will make traffic dangers at the bend in the road more dangerous, Development behind "Harriets End" will impede the village village's stated view of good views of the Church. The previous 36 Houses scheme off the Olney road is much the preferred solution. Development down Water Lane will cause huge access problems.

Development should not be on the east side of the High Street because of drainage problems. The high street runs like a river due to the lay of the land with foul and rain water so any extra building on that side would overload the system. This knowledge is legally binding.

of 21



H2 Still consider 12 dwellings in one place may change the fabric of the village and believe it should be "infill" only.

H2 Are any of the proposed building areas to contain 2/3 bed starter homes to encourage young people in our village? Would support 20 / 24 in H1 if I thought the homes would be affordable.

H2 Two developments of small properties might work well (one for younger families, one for older residents)

H2 Why "12" surely it is an arbitrary figure based on non of inhabitants? Area of development

H2 Are H1 + H2 complimentary? That is 2*12 new housing developments (H2) equals a total of 24 new properties (H1).

H2 Although inevitable that there must be some new building, it is essential to make sure that dwellings are detached or semi-detached not multiple occupancy such as flats or whole terraces.

H2 Reads supports individual developments up to 12 dwellings. I know what you mean.

H2 How is the village going to stay as a village if MKC decide to engulf it within MK?

H2 No reference to meeting variety of national/ / local needs re type / size of units . Developments of 12 or less (infilling) will not provide low cost / affordable housing.

H2 Sherington can cope with more than 24 dwellings and more that 12 on any development.

H3 Is the most fundamental of the policies. In recent months too many developers + land owners are ignoring the village and going to MK council. This is shockingly disrespectful and arrogant.

H3 Unworkable

H3 Developers must engage before submitting formal applications as this will be to the benefit of developers, MKC Planning & Sherington.

H3 How is the village going to stay as a village if MKC decide to engulf it within MK?

SH1 The omission of "Leg of Mutton" field which lies between Gun Lane and High Street to the North of the "Historic Green Heart of Sherington" Green space proposal is totally illogical. This field should be included within the SH1 proposal without delay.

SH1 Mason's field is enclosed on two side by houses. You can't really see the church from it easily. There were no major objections as far as we are aware when Carters Close was developed and this must surely have been a "green heart" as well. And what about the houses at the end of the High Street (Nos 18 -32)

SH1 We would like any site of archaeological significance excluded from the development plan.

SH1 I would like to know who the planned sites are building before agreeing to any heritage blocks. We need more information on building & sites proposed. To make a heritage historic green heart should not be made. Not enough information basic question.

of 21



SH1 No

SH1 No to heritage. Planning needs to be decided and sites 1st. The council meeting by the Secretary of State will be dealing with a planning application this Thursday 10th January. We do not know the outcome at this what the outcome will be. May be we need to see the answer 1st.

SH1 Except where liked to public use of the green space I.E. car parking, or pavilion, village hall etc.

SH1 In my opinion, it would be better to build a small group of houses on the land next to Harriets End rather than building a large housing estate on a field outside the village

SH1 H1 and SH1 - theses 2 policies appear to target the same objective, i.e.. Seeing no development on the fields as designated on the map. This area has been given the historic Green Heart, but apart from occasional dog walkers in 'Masons field, these fields appear to be private land and are not accessible to the residents of Sherington - therefore how can this be described as the heart of Sherington? Given no one can access these fields, and d the majority of the residents cannot appreciate the views, what is this large chunk of land being preserved for? Would it be better to provide new housing where there is space, so as not to cram them in between existing developments to the detriments of bother the new house owners and the existing Sherington residents?

SH1 Should include the tumulus field on Crofts End as a heritage site. I do not believe that is does currently. Sherington has a rich yet declining wildlife population (newts, bats, owls, grass snakes, butterflies, insects, and more). There needs to be a policy or policies to protect and enhance the wildlife, such as wildlife friendly development( swift nest boxes built -in, hedgehog passages between gardens etc.)

SH1 "Heritage" Why is burial mound not included in schedule Z as part of our historic green belt.

SH1 Further to open up the overgrown areas & trim hedges

SH1 There seem to be significant problems with this policy on the proposed area: matters of principle, practicality and robustness.

of 21


[A2] Issued Document for written feedback Extract of attached letter submitted with response

Our thoughts on future housing developments within the Parish boundary...

Sherington cannot standstill. It needs a steady, controlled flow of new inhabitants and new homes in which to house them. This benefits the village socially as well as helping to support local amenities such as the school, the church and the shop and pub. Presumably this concept is generally agreed - it is the siting, the scale and type of houses that is more controversial.

After initially being against the development we have come to the conclusion that the development as proposed at the northern end of the village on the west of High Street, offers the best initial site. Any subsequent requirement could be met by merely infilling existing small vacant plots within the village. This would leave the existing and comparatively limited green space in the village to which the public have access free for the enjoyment of all.

We suggest this site as the best current option with these TWO PROVISOS:

1. All construction traffic to be routed direct from the AS09 at Alban Hill.

2. The developers to be made responsible for the construction of a roundabout of sufficient size to allow the combined traffic that would be generated at peak times from a development of the size proposed and the existing adjacent commercial site, safely on to the High Street We estimate there could be as many as 60-80 vehicles filtering on and off the combined sites during morning and evening commuting times. The roundabout would also serve to reduce the speed of traffic entering the village from the north, an increasingly serious problem already recognised by the Highways Authorities, the Parish Council and residents of the High Street.

<Signed by three related signatories>


of 21


[B1] On Line feed back response – Voting AnalysisSHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES

of 21


[B2] On Line feed back response - Summary CommentsSHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES


of 21

A1

Agree in principle, but as we don't know what the Heritage and Community Assets are at the moment so can't agree to something when we don't know what it is. In the paper copy of the survey it states "as listed in Schedules X and Y of the Plan" which we haven't been able to find in the draft policies document. Further information needed to be able to answer the question. If this is provided then we will probably agree. I own a listed building and have had a very negative experience with the MK listed building dept. when applying for any type of restorative/building work. How will future requests be dealt with under The Plan?

It's too black and white and does not allow any flexibility in interpretation to deal with as yet unforeseen needs and external changes.

The community assets can only be maintained with the addition of housing. Build in close proximity to these assets would be detrimental, but without the addition of families, the average age of the village population will continue to age.

The Green fields down Water Lane should stay as they are as grazing for animals to retain the rural nature of the Lane as an asset for walkers.

The Parish Council should give serious consideration to designating Conservation Area and/or Local Green Space as additional future protection, where appropriate, to Village Assets in light of some of the development proposals emerging from the Plan MK proces.

The villages in this country not only in this area but throughout England are some of our greatest assets not only historically but visually - teeming with wild life, beauty and room to breathe!! Many years ago experiments were made with crowding rats into smaller spaces = it was noted that after time they turned on one another! And we are already seeing that in many parts of the world.

to agree to this we would need listed schedules first

To get this to such few words is indeed a statement in itself. It say's it all !

we have to evolve as a village but need maintain its character. Some new home are a must and replacing existing should happen. Numbers of people living in the village is to be managed by the lack of services. The heritage is important to maintain but must be done with care. I agree we need some jobs t=in the village but need to ensure the buildings these are housed in are appropriate for the type of village we are and restrict large lorries from entering and passing through. We have a small business in the centre of the village is well run and managed with care. More heavy good vehicles should be prevented

What are the assets? If they were listed, heritage infers they already exist,



of 21

B1

Amend as follows:- Insert suitable after support and before applications. Delete the extra space between or and displaced.

as above lets please define small scale. And ensure it is SMEs which are healthy for the community. Having industrial sized warehouses that pretend to be agricultural should not be allowed. A clearly understandable definition of small scale would be helpful.

But do not wish to have businesses which compete with local town amenities in newport Pagnell or olney

I would add a rider that "As long as B1 remains in accord with A1 and can be accommodated by the statements contained within A1"

I would like to encourage or keep going existing business

I'm still trying to come to a decision on this!! I'd be very interested in finding out how many of the existing business premises are being used especially the single storey buildings adjacent to the business at the end of the High street ( they have been empty for years) .

Subject to feasibility an element of work/ live accommodation should be included designed specifically to meet the needs of new locally based start-up businesses. Ideally this project would be overseen by a specialist not- for- profit/third sector partner

The emphasis should be on retaining and attracting businesses which are at an appropriate scale to the village and its infrastructure. Major distribution and logistic uses are unsuitable because of their impact on the road system and environment.

This village already supports numerous businesses and the rural nature of Sherington and its close proximity to Newport Pagnell and Olney where numerous business sites and premises are available means that it does not need anymore. Smith's Yard with its poor access should remain as a business site and the owners encouraged to upgrade and smarten up the premises. I note that more business units are now available to rent at Manor farm so we definitely don.t need more

To what extent the amount of land and building will be made available for this policy is unclear and is potentially unlimited. A limit needs to be defined

We want existing local businesses to prosper with no unnecessary hindrance. But while we are being very particular about open spaces disappearing for new housing, we are equally concerned about new business premises being built on the open spaces in and around Sherington.

What type of building or land would be considered. Obviously supporting local enterprise is vital but to either support or disagree with this aim example;es of potential assets considered fo change should be listed.



of 21

H1Again, must remain in accord with A1

agreed but we must ensure the new comers have adequate services in the village. The village shop, the post office and the village hall are key yes BUT NOT IN ONE Location

An earlier Parish Council passed a resolution which indicated a slightly higher number of new dwellings in total. No reason has been provided to move away from this policy stance.

Bigger sized developments spoil the village feel and endanger the heritage we want to protect

H1 this I think would therefore consist of 2 small developments?

Happy for this to be on or just outside the boundary of the village so that the character of the original village is retained eg keep the green fields near the church

is this in Total?

Not sensitive, affordable family properties should be the priority.

Only providing that any site granted planning permission has good road access including a pavement for pedestrian use. Road access to some of the sites under consideration are single track only and NOT suitable for development as there would be DANGEROUS to pedestrians and residents turning out of their drives. This would apply to Smith's Yard and any other development down Water Lane.

Preferably offering a range of housing typologies

Sensitive development would be welcome but not loosing the aminities of the village

The numbers 20 and 24 disagree with policy H2 and also policy H2 and H5 in the draft consultation version of the NP.

The village needs a range of housing stock to enable Sherington to have a more balanced demographic profile.

These new dwellings should be flats, terraced and semi-detached to enable first time buyers the opportunity to live in the village. Sherington does not need any more detached properties. The type of dwellings needs to be balanced

This appears to be contradictory with H2. is it up to 12 dwellings or 20-24 dwellings?

This should be reworded to confirm that the village will support a total of up to 24 dwellings within the plan period; not a range as set out, as this fails to be clear as policy.

Why top limit of 24? small developments that offer socially affordable housing for Sherington residents ought to be a specific point in the NP



of 21

H2Developments of up to 12 are unlikely to provide affordable options. Again the key message is family housing to provide new blood for the village.

Encourage and support 'Eco build' projects with innovation regarding low energy build and use of renewable energy sources.

I support this as small sites of up to 12 dwellings would represent a reasonable level of development that could be consumed within the fabric of the village with adverse impact.I would also highlight that of the sites promoted by Landowners,the land at Gun Lane site R31 is the only site promoted for this scale of development that is directly adjacent to the village boundary.Site R13 land at Smiths Yard is also an appropriate size but is on land separated from the village boundary.It would therefore seem illogical to seek to place R31 on the excluded sites list.I would also add that I do not think it appropriate for the Parish to place any site on the Excluded Site List as this is neither fair nor democratic.All the sites should be open to consideration by parisioners,especially where they form a logical extension to the village ,and /or meet the site selection criteria.

It makes much more sense to only build on one site in Sherington and to choose a site with good access where a footpath to school ,shop and bus can be provided to ensure safety for pedestrians and road users. 20 homes on one site with good safe access is the only reasonable solution to the housing dilemma. The village boundary will have to be shifted to achieve this.I note that the Pariish Council now supports moving the boundary as it has supported a solar array application outside the village boundary. This means that there can no longer be any objection to building on the High Street and putting all new homes there where access is good.

Need to negotiate with MKC planners their ruling on windfall sites. Whereas the current definition may be wholly appropriate for for urban locations it is not proportionate to the needs and wants of small village settlements

prefer this but would go to 15 or 20 if site big enough and not spoiling current look and feel of original village centre ie green at knoll green by the manor house green field. at church etc

small required to keep Sherington as Sherington

Such a policy would , in my view, be more likely to help retain the feel and character of the village we all enjoy living in.

The dwellings should be limited by design, covenant or whatever powers are open to the parish in order to prevent said dwellings in the future becoming further developed such as to destroy their original purpose, be it affordable, community use, business, or whatever. By this I mean a 3 bed property not becoming a 5 bed and pricing itself out of the marketplace and removing 3 bed property from the parish housing stock for example.

The issue of how new development integrates with its surroundings is a matter of intelligent design and not necessarily one of unit numbers. I can agree with the policy if the second sentence is deleted.

The number 12 disagrees with those in policy H1 above and also the number (15) in policy H2 and the number (20) in policy H5 in the draft consultation version of the NP. The following amendment should also be made:- Insert suitable after only and before individual.This would preclude an obligation on the developer to provide any form of affordable housing and will probably lead to the development of expensive 3 to 5 bedroom houses.

yes it should be but as Q4.H1



of 21

H3

Absolutely

Although a process of what and how these will be measured needs to be clearly defined. I assume MKCouncil won't be able to overrule any decisions if developers then went to them directly?

Discussions with developers should not focus solely on the physical form of development but must also understand how development can help enhance and sustain village facilities.

Included in pre application dialogue should be a 'Heads of Terms' agreement covering any Section 106 and/or planning gain proposals which will be legally binding on applicants on award of a planning consent. The S106 Agreement will be a matter for MKC the planning gain will be a matter for the Parish Council. Applicants/developers should be compelled to use best endeavours to bid for Government led initiatives such as 'Help to Buy' which can assist with affordability issues comonly experienced by First Time Buyers. Ideally local people should be preference for say 6 months after the release for sale of any qualifying property.

style of housing is key a mixture of starter homes and bungalows too please so we don't create ghettos but keep the community very mixed But not in ONE LOCATION< spread this out across the village to mix the community

The Parish Council members change so fast in this village that this makes no sense at all.

This move will stop any development in the village.



of 21

SH1

Agreed though this should be extended beyond and should look to cover other historic parts of the village. th risk is development happens at entry to the village and not at areas where one or two homes could be build easily as in fills

Couldn't access map so assuming church fields are in this

Dictating this space seems to contravene Question 5 where "Ensure that new housing developments are of a scale that can reasonably be expected to become an integral part of the Village. Only individual developments of up to 12 dwellings will be supported" How can the houses be integral part of the village when such a large area in the middle of the village is removed from the scope?

Essential

I agree with what is suggested but think we should include the park by the village hall and the playing fields around the pavilion.

I gather this is to build on ('scuse pun) what already exists on much of the land as an article 4 direction. Excellent.

I strongly agree. This area is critical to protecting the character of the village.

I think living in the village with a small family, the village needs to keep the buildings to be planned, small and compact, in the heart of the village. It allows family's to be able to mix easily, be part of the village, being able to go to individual activities, play area, brownies, choir, youth club etc,school with out being transported by car. Keep the village as a village, small and compact, with green fields all around

In respect of policy SH1, the proposed designation of this extensive tract of land as Local Green Space is not supported by the National Planning Policy Framework.The designation of this land would not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 77 of the NPF.It is presently primarily agricultural land that has little to no public benefit.To my knowledge it has no public access nor is particularily visible within the wider public views from the north of the village.Again,to my knowledge,it has no special ''local'' significance,that is specific to the village,and therefore cannot be designated as a Local Green Space.It is also worth highlighting that as a point under ''Heritage'',the suggestion there is some historic value to the land that is intrinsic to the heritage of the village is,I believe, somewhat misleading.It may fall in the Conservation Area of the village( I am not sure if it does?) but it is not,I believe,that important to the character and appearance of the historic core of the village.



of 21

SH1 (continued)

It makes much more sense to build on the High Street so why designate them as green space. Other fields that are grazing land should be the ones designated as green space to maintain the rural nature of the village around the periphery.All housing should be concentrated in areas that have more housing at present

The area suggested as a Green Space is too extensive and should exclude some areas adjacent to the centre of the village where development would be most sustainable because of its relationship to bus routes, village centre, church, village hall and shop. The effect of this designation will be to create areas of development which are peripheral, pushed to the edge of the village, unlikely to be physically well-integrated and car dependent.

This land is agricultural land. Therefore, I do not agree that any of it should be included in the conservation area because such a designation would seriously interfere with the proper agricultural management of the land.

This would imply that any area outside this 'green space is potentially up for grabs? It should be made clear what is the limit of development outside this area or is this defined by the previous question. Clarification is required on this point.

Through the Neighbourhood Plan the Parish Council should use its powers to support and enforce recent location specific Local Planning Guidance issued in respect of the Green Heart area. This would include awarding conservation status to Masons Field and resisting any form of development on the Article 4 Direction Order Land. Owners of the fields proposed for Local Green Space designation should be encouraged / incentivised to implement a long term plan to manage the land in a eco-sentitive manner that enhances its future community benefit.

We strongly agree with this proposal.



of 21

Other comments

Are you publishing the site assessment data so that residents have a chance to comment and correct it if necessary?

can all significant Planning Applications be suspended until the Plan is in force (providing that is within a reasonable timeframe)?

i am very supportive of some new homes being built and some may even be in my back yard. I do object BIG developments though and we must ensure that we allow small developments only three or so to make up the number of homes needed. It can be economic, but this will ensure it is sustainably built for the long term for the village life

I hope that the hard work pays off and we are able to continue to have a say in our community's growth

I would like to see the individual listed building projects for the high street, a lot for and against, showing on the last poll but not individually listed as most people did list what they wanted. But those results have not been published, even asking a member of the neighbourhood plan.Its lumped together we should be able to see them listed separately.

In looking at the 'draft policies' that have been drawn out of the responses to the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan Consultation, I was surprised to see no mention of Transport and Pollution therein. The subject had its own topic [No 5] within the Consultation Survey and received many specific feedback comments on the particular themes raised within the questionnaire, e.g. the provision of safer cycling. Has it been decided that this whole area of interest to the village should not now be included within the Neighbourhood Plan? If so, what process was undertaken to make that decision?

It is important that our communities are not bullied into these plans by MKC who are potentially picking the least objectable (based on on numbers), rather than most practical

No

No

Not at this time

Only to say well done to a fantastic team. This must be One of the hardest times for many years. So much pressure from developers, land owners and government. They will destroy what we have worked for. They can move on........

Sherington is not particularly well-provided with footpaths. New development should be expected to facilitate new footpath links within and external to the village.



of 21

Other comments (continued)

Thank you to the team who have worked very hard to get the NP to this stage.

Thanks for all your hard work - much appreciated.

Thanks for the hard work. I hope it is not in vain.

The questions seemed loaded to me

The shoulder of mutton field is not shown in the green heart proposal. I am not in favour of any development of this field either except for the renovation of the barn into a dwelling.I hope this can be made clear.

We are of the opinion if the shop is stay sustainable it would be better sited on the main road.

Would like to see in the plan support and encouragement for the installation of 'Renewable energy' projects, both on individual houses and community wide projects.

SHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES Feedback on Draft Policies5 January 2015 The policies...

Documents

Transcript of SHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - DRAFT POLICIES Feedback on Draft Policies5 January 2015 The policies...