David Wilson Homes A group company of Barratt Developments plc
Public Consultation 2008 Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities Maresfield Village Extension (Land South of Park Farm)
Colin Buchanan on behalf of David Wilson Homes A group company of Barratt Developments plc and the Landowners
May 2008
Contents
01
Introduction
2
1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose of this Report
2 2
02
Context
3
2.1 Guidance Documents for Consultation Programme
3
2.2 Who should be consulted and how? 2.3 Summary of Consultation History
3 4
03
Public Consultation 2008
6
3.1 Introduction 3.2 Aims 3.3 Consultation Methods
6 6 6
3.4 Analysis of Newsletter Questionnaire 12
3.5 Workshop Day
04 Findings & Next Steps
Appendices
15
23
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
01 Introduction 1.1 Background
1.2 Purpose of this interim report
David Wilson Homes, a group company of Barratt Developments plc, on behalf of the landowners, is developing a masterplan for land South of Park Farm in Maresfield.
This interim repor t sets out the findings from the workshop day, held on the 27th of April 2008, and the responses from the first newsletter received during the consultation period (19th April 2008 to 2nd May 2008).
The masterplan aims to demonstrate that the land South of Park Farm is an appropriate location for a residential led mixed use development. It adopts a visionary approach to the extension of Maresfield as a mixed use development with a strong emphasis on traditional rural densities and a modern interpretation of traditional buildings and spaces, intended to enhance the existing village of Maresfield by increasing the economic viability, choice and quality of local amenities. The design process started in 2005 and gained momentum over the last couple of months through the dissemination of a newsletter in the village and a workshop day attended by over 90 residents and local stakeholders. On-going public consultation activities stem from a consultation strategy document that provides the context and rational for public consultation activities related to the developer’s site promotion activities. It was developed in February 2008 by Colin Buchanan’s Consultation team and although it has evolved since then, it still acts as guiding document for the consultation activities planned for the next stages in the design process. The public consultation strategy was informed by Wealden District Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, SCI (February 2007) which sets out who and how to involve the public and stakeholders in the planning processes.
The main purpose of this interim repor t is to provide a record of comments and feedback received at this stage of the public consultation programme. It intends to inform the next stage of the masterplan design stage by assembling the feedback received in a manner that allows the design team to validate and refine the initial masterplan proposals efficiently. This interim repor t will be made available to the public via the project website. Hard copies will be deposited at the local post office and village shop in Maresfield. The next round of public consultation is scheduled for September 2008. A second consultation repor t will be published to outline the results. Both documents will be submitted to Wealden District Council as par t of the developers/ landowners representations on the emerging Local Development Framework Core Strategy, and any subsequent planning application relating to the site.
02 Context 2.1 Guidance documents for consultation programme The land South of Park Farm is currently not allocated for development in the current Local Plan for Wealden (both Statutory and NonStatutory Plan). However, the Wealden District Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) can be used as a key guidance document in devising an appropriate public consultation strategy for this part of the planning process. Wealden District Council adopted a Statement of Community Involvement, SCI in February 2007). It sets out how the local authority will consult with and involve interested parties in the planning process, including:
The preparation of planning policy and guidance documents in Wealden District; and
Decisions on planning applications for development in Wealden District.
It states further that if a proposal is deemed to be significant by the local planning authority, developers/applicants will be expected to undertake community engagement and involvement in drawing up their proposals.
Website
Formal Letters/ one to one meeting /tele-con
The Government’s definition of ‘major applications’ includes residential development of 10 or more dwellings or a site area of 0.5 hectares or greater where the number of dwellings is not known. For other land uses a ‘major application’ is one where the floorspace is 1,000 sq m or the site area is 1 hectare or greater. In light of this, the proposals for the land south of Park Farm are likely to be classified as a ‘major’ development in the event that a planning application were to be submitted to the Council.
2.2 Who should be consulted and how The SCI explains how various methods may be used by developers/applicants in seeking to involve the community at an early stage in drawing up their proposals. The following list, though not intended to be exhaustive, includes a range of techniques that, depending on the scale and nature of the proposal, may be used to engage the Stakeholders and the community:
Leaflet
Study Tour
Workshop
Exhibition
Wealden District Council Statutory Consultees Parish Council Local Stakeholders Residents Group Public Figure 1: Wealden District Council 2007, Statement of Community involvement (SCI)
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
2.3 Summary of Consultation history Over the last couple of years a series of meetings have been held with local stakeholders and residents groups. The table below outlines the dates and parties involved. Date
Venue
Parties represented
23/11/2005
Spor ts/ Recreation Ground Pavilion
Maresfield Forum & Field End Residents Association Maresfield Parish Council (Traffic and Environment Working Par ty) Maresfield Conservation Group Affinity Housing Association Millhouse Farm, Cricket and Soccer Clubs
14/02/2006
Conference room at The Chequers Hotel
Millhouse Farm Maresfield Conservation Wealden District Council and Parish Council Governors of Maresfield Primary School
08/04/2006
Maresfield Parish Village Hall
The majority of the above plus other members of the Community. Formation of Maresfield Renaissance Group shor tly after this meeting.
02/04/2007
Maresfield Parish Village Hall
Traffic and Environment Working Par ty
17/04/2007
The Chequers Hotel
Maresfield Renaissance Group
17/12/2007
Maresfield , Parish Village Hall
Maresfield Renaissance Group
Figure 2: Based on report ‘The Renaissance of Maresfield - Representation from David Wilson Homes’ on WDC Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation’, 2007), updated in May 2008
From 2005 to mid 2007 consultation was informal and led by the landowners appointed masterplanner (StudioDare). In spring 2007, the Maresfield Conservation Group consulted its members on a series of ‘key objectives for any major development taking place in Maresfield’ and asked their members for their endorsement (see full documentation in Appendix 1). These were as follows: 1. To eliminate or substantially reduce unnecessary through traffic by: a) Traffic calming measures for Batts Bridge Road and School Hill (Already under consideration within the Section 106 Agreement relating to the proposed Persimmons Development) b) Improvements to Budletts Roundabout and Lampool Corner junction as well as other measures to diver t through traffic onto the by-pass whilst ensuring that diver ted traffic is prevented from using local lanes and minor roads as an alternative. c) Providing for safe routes and access to the school which could include a footbridge over School Hill 2. To preserve and enhance the historic centre of the village and try to ensure any fur ther development is integrated sympathetically into the village with priority given to local needs. This will include: a) Promoting pedestrian safety by improving street lighting and pavement width where required. b) Ensure safe footpaths and cycle routes give access to the village centre and the public spaces
c) Incorporating energy saving design and street lighting that avoids ’light’ pollution. 3.To preserve and extend the existing recreation ground and secure new green space within the village in perpetuity as a barrier to continuing add-on housing development. 4.To remain impartial and not align these objectives with any particular developer. The Conservation Group questionnaire exercise sought a mandate from its members to take the objectives forward through the on-going LDF framework representations and consultation activities. Once endorsed these objectives formed the basis of the dialogue between the Maresfield Renaissance Group and the design team. (As stated in MRG statement attached to Appendix 3).
In essence, and as outlined above, a number of local stakeholder groups and individuals have been involved in shaping the design team’s thinking from the very outset of the design process. In April 2008, the design team, acting on behalf of the developer par tner and the landowners, prepared a newsletter outlining details of the initial masterplan and disseminated it to households in Maresfield. Public workshops were held both with the intention to widen and formalise the consultation activities. These consultation activities mark the transition from informal stakeholder consultation activities to more formal public consultation. In the following section a summary repor t of the findings of these public consultation activities are provided.
In total, 397 forms were distributed of which 251 were returned. A letter from the Conservation Group Secretary, at the time also chariman of the Maresfeild Renaissance Group, to Maresfield Parish Council states that a total of 246 respondees (98% of all questionnaires returned) supported the above described set of objectives for major development in Maresfield. Thus the set of local objectives as presented above provided an important sounding board for the design team’s thinking in relation to Land South of Park Farm.
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
03 Public Consultation 2008 3.1 Introduction In February 2008 the Maresfield design team, the developer partner David Wilson Homes and the landowners felt that the masterplanning process would benefit from a programme of wider formal consultation activities focused on the concerns that people of Maresfield may have regarding the initial proposals. By the end of March 2008 a public consultation strategy was developed by Colin Buchanan’s Consultation team and agreed with David Wilson Homes and the Landowners. The programme of activities was presented to the Maresfield Renaissance Group, (MRG) on the 2nd of April 2008. The dates and elements of the strategy were endorsed by the residents group with only minor changes to the programme.2 In the following, we describe the aims of the public consultation strategy, objectives, formats, material used to inform the public as well as the results of the workshop day and the analysis of the questionnaire responses provided.
3.2 Aims The main aims for this phase of the local public consultation process were:
To inform the residents of Maresfield on the initial masterplan proposals;
To focus on understanding the aspects of the initial masterplan that people are concerned about so that those aspects can be refined and optimised over the course of the next design stage.
3.3 Consultation methods The following methods formed the backbone of the public consultation programme for this formal phase of public consultation in 2008:
Newsletter with freepost comments cards (a second is planned later in the year)
A workshop day with presentation and exhibition (a second is planned later in the year)
A web site (to be launched with this interim repor t) to inform on progress
Email address and phone number during this first public consultation period (19th April to 2nd May)
A poster notifying the residents of the workshop day ( put up at local shop and Post office on the 17th of April)
Newsletter One – initial masterplan proposals and comments cards The newsletter intended to initiate the dialogue between the design team and the residents of Maresfield by providing key information regarding the initial proposals. Newsletter One provided information on characteristics of the initial masterplan including a map showing the likely layout, the main access roads, a section outlining the proposals, the benefits of the masterplan and a sketch highlighting areas for streetscape improvements in the village. A freepost comments card was attached to the newsletter offering the residents an oppor tunity to provide feedback. The following three questions were asked: Q1: On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent do you think the draft masterplan will result in a positive addition to the village? Q2: How do you think the developer could fur ther improve the proposals? Q3: On a scale from 1 to 10, how safe and pleasant are the streets of Maresfield for pedestrians and cyclists at the moment?
The programme initially showed a study tour to exemplar developments in the South East for around 40 to 50 residents prior to a workshop day. MRG advised the design team that an important meeting scheduled for the last Saturday in April 08 would clash with our suggested study tour. In light of that the design team decided to cancel the study tour.
2
A prize draw of ÂŁ50 of high street vouchers was offered as incentive and with the intension to increase the number of responses during the two week consultation period. A copy of the newsletter is attached to Appendix 2. The newsletter invited residents to come along to the workshop day on the 27th of April 2008. We provided a phone number and an email address so residents could book a workshop space prior to the event. Posters were put up in the local shop and post office (10 days prior to the event).
Concerns that not every household had received a copy of the newsletter were repor ted in the subsequent week. We responded to this concern immediately by sending an additional 100 copies of the newsletter to the local shop and the post office for fur ther dissemination. In total, we disseminated around 800 copies of the newsletter in Maresfield.
Workshop day format We held three workshop sessions during the day star ting at 10am, 2pm and 4pm. The workshop day concluded with a session scheduled for 7pm open to all, irrespective of prior workshop attendance. This way we intended to provide an oppor tunity for briefing those that couldn’t take par t during the day. Figure 4: Poster
Figure 3: Newsletter One
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
Key objectives of the workshop were: A) To understand to what extent the attendees feel the design team had got it right or wrong so far? B) New ideas and concerns The design team sought feedback from the attendees on the following six themes/topics relating to the initial masterplan and the information presented in the disseminated newsletter and on the day: Street improvements Land uses Building heights Amount Open Space Access Each workshop session started with a statement from the Maresfield Renaissance Group with the intention to clarify their role in the process so far and in response to issues raised prior to the workshop day by local residents. A copy of the statement is attached to Appendix 3. This was followed by an explanation of the purpose and structure of the individual sessions and a presentation illustrating the numerous aspects of the initial masterplan including traffic survey data and complemented by illustrations of initial streetscape improvement schemes (both attached to Appendix 3). After the presentation the audience split up into two or three facilitated break-out groups depending on number of attendees. The participants took part in discussions using the traffic light method complemented by a large poster used to note thoughts/ideas and concerns raised during the discussion.
The method can be described as follows:
Step 1: The participants divide into groups of between five to fifteen Each group is staffed by a members facilitating the debate. Step 2: The facilitator explains the proceedings and outputs Step 3: The facilitator introduces the first topic for discussion.Each topic is discussed for approximately ten minutes. Ideas put forward, concerns and issues raised are noted on large scale poster visible to all. Step 4: Following the group discussion on the first topic, the facilitator asks the group to consider whether it is: = heading in the right direction; = some aspects are ok and others not; or = heading in the wrong direction. Step 5: The facilitator asks the group to reach a collective decision on the topic under discussion. The appropriate sticker- red, green or amber is placed next to the item on a large poster visible to all. The facilitator then moves on to the next topic from the agenda. In some cases a collective decision cannot be reached, therefore the facilitator uses a combination of the colours to reflect the various opinions. Step 6 : At the end of the discussion, the facilitator asks the group to agree the three main issues that are the most important to them. These are recorded on the poster visible to all and can be reported to the room during the consensus session. Step 7: (Preparation for Consensus Session) The facilitator posts the traffic lights on to each of the six subject area boards at the front of the room so that all visitors can see the results of all groups. A brief description of the reasons why the group chose a particular traffic light is also given (if the time table allows it); otherwise a walk-in exhibtion is offered. Step 8: A brief summary of the day, key actions are recorded and the workshop session is brought to a close.
Workshop day 27th of April 2008 G VIN O E M IGHT W R E AR THE ION? IN RECT DI
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
Prior to each of the three daytime workshop sessions the design team invited attendees to take part in two exercises. The first one consisted of a map of Maresfield and the invitation to place a blue dot on that map indicating where the participants live in Maresfield and a red dot where they feel the traffic issues are particularly bad. This exercise was devised to involve the participants at an early stage of the workshop session, familiarise them with the method of using large scale boards to communicate their views and provide input into the next stage streetscape design work. The results of this voluntary exercise are recorded and shown below:
This was followed by asking par ticipants to place a dot on a ‘moodometer’ poster answering the following questions: ’On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent do you think the draft masterplan will result in a positive addition to the village?’ This is a repetition of Q1 as used in the newsletter one comments card. During the workshop day the question was asked as par ticipants entered the workshop prior to listening to the presentation. It was intended to repeat the exercise at the end of each session to provide an indication of perception change. After the first workshop session, it was decided to change this approach and repeat the exercise after the presentation of the revised masterplan in the autumn. This will enable the design team to assess the extent to which they have addressed the issues raised through the public consultation activities. The results of this voluntary exercise are recorded and shown below:
Figure 5: Where do you live? (blue dots) and indicated locations of perceived traffic issues (red dots)
10
Figure 6: Do you think the draft masterplan will result in a positive addition to the village?
Website: www.maresfield.org The web site has the primary purpose of informing the general public and stakeholders regarding the development principles and the latest on the masterplan proposals as well as on up coming consultation activities. It consists of the following sections:
About this website
Why Maresfield
Vision Statement
Initial Masterplan
Have your Say
The Team
Although not every household has access to the internet, the design team has chosen to use a website as an addition to the more traditional ways of consultation and dissemination of project information. The flexibility and cost effectiveness of the medium were the main reasons for using the internet.
Figure 7: Screen shot of project website
However, local events such as exhibitions and workshops will be publicised via posters/ leaflets and or the local press to make this information available to all local residents and stakeholders.
11
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
3.4 Analysis of Newsletter Questionnaire As part of the Maresfield public consultation activities 2008 and prior to the first community workshop held on Sunday 27th April, a newsletter was distributed to village residents. In total, over 800 leaflets were disseminated to individual households. Additional newsletters were available to attendees at the workshop sessions on 27th April. The newsletter included a freepost feedback slip and is attached to Appendix 2 of this repor t. The slip asked for the following information from respondents;
Age by group
Gender
Telephone number
and the following questions;
Do you live in Maresfield?
On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent do you think the draft masterplan will result in a positive addition to the village? (1 being least favourable)
How do you think the developer could further improve the proposals? (Space for 5 suggestions provided)
On a scale from 1 to 10, how safe are pleasant are the streets of Maresfield for pedestrians and cyclists at the moment?
Sample description In total, 59 feedback slips were received. Out of these 13 were incomplete for not completing one or more of the other elements and one slip was not counted as it was returned after the reply date. All feedback slips received by the 6th May have, however, been recorded and the data used for the purposes of analysis. The gender split in the sample is 8:5 in favor of male respondents, equivalent to 62% (31) of
12
respondents being male versus 38% (20) females. The significant majority, 96% of those who responded live in Maresfield. The propor tionate age profile of respondents is illustrated in Table 1 overleaf. It is shown with a comparison age profile for Maresfield village, based on 2001 census data for the Wealden 013A (Lower Layer Super Output Area), which covers Maresfield. It is evident that the responses received are unrepresentative of the population of Maresfield many due lacking a representation of the age groups under 36. There is an overrepresentation of all the older age groups above 36 years old resulting in an over representation of older citizens in the sample, in comparison to the demographic profile of the Census data as shown in the table 1. In par ticular the over 75’s are represented at nearly twice the base population percentage for that cohor t. Notwithstanding the fact that the census data is now 7 years out of date, if one were to assume the fur ther ageing of the census population profile, it could be strongly assumed that overrepresentation would still have occurred. At the other extreme those aged under 16 comprised the largest group in the local population according to the 2001 census, at 22.8% however, are unrepresented in the sample. The demographic profile of respondents can be attributed to the nature of the consultation itself, which was directed in terms of its distribution and content at an adult audience, primarily the heads of households. This lack of representation needs to be addressed in phase two of the consultation activities. Table 2 overleaf shows the profile of respondents by gender. In the cohor ts aged over 50 it is evident that there is an overrepresentation of male respondents. In both the 51 to 64 and 65 to 75 age groups the number of male respondents is more than twice the number of female respondents.
Table 3: Responses to Question 1 by Score
Table 1: Age Group of Respondents in comparison to 2001 Census Data for Maresfield, shown as proportionate percentage.
34
26.00% 21.70%
22.80%
20.30% 16.00%
6.60%
12.00% 10.70%
9.30% 8.00%
Number of Responses
2001 Census Respondents
36.00%
8
8.40%
4
2.00%
Below 16
2
1
0.00%
17 to 26
27 to 35
36 to 50 Age Group
51 to 64
65 to 75
Above 75
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
3
3
Six
2
Seven
Eight
1
1
Nine
Ten
Scale 1 to 10
Table 2 : Gender of Respondents by Age Group
14
Male Female
7 5
5
5
5 3
2 2
2
1 0 0
0
Below 16 17 to 26
27 to 35
36 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 75 Above 75
Age Group
Table 4 shows responses to question 1 by age, split into two categories, below 50 and above 50 years old. Where respondents have either not indicated their age group or provided a response to the question they have not been counted. Visually it can be seen that there is a marked difference in terms how these two aggregated groups have responded to the question. Looking at the below 50 age group shown in red, it is evident that they represent less than half the responses to category 1, and are less than the above 50 group (shown in blue) equivalent to categories 2 and 3.
Question 1
positive response thus the sample indicates that here is a significant group of individuals particularly those aged 50 and older (see table 4) who consider that the draft masterplan will not result in a positive addition to the village. Taking account of the spread of responses, the average score is 2.5.
Table 4 : Responses to Question 1 by Age Split and Score
Below 50 Above 50
22 Number of Responses
The question asked respondents, on a scale of 1 to 10; to what extent do you think the draft masterplan will result in a positive addition to the village? Table 3 below indicates that of the 59 respondents, 34 selected [1] being the least
10
5 3
3 1
One
Two
Three
3 0
1
Four
1 1 Five
2 0
Six
1
Seven
1 1 Eight
0
1
Nine
1
0
Ten
Scale 1 to 10
13
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
Question 2
Question 3
The question asked respondents to propose up to 5 measures which they think could be included to improve the draft masterplan proposals.
This question asked respondents on a scale from 1 to 10, how safe and pleasant are the streets of Maresfield for pedestrians and cyclists at the moment?
Respondent’s comments were reviewed and are recorded in Appendix 2 for further reading. Some of the most commonly provided suggestions relating directly to the improvement of the development proposals are as follows:
Do not build homes at all / the village is not suitable for development.
Existing traffic concerns need to be addressed with particular reference to village traffic speeds and existing calming measures. As well as future traffic concerns, with par ticular reference to the proposed site access and future traffic volumes in the village.
Table 5 shows the total number of responses by score. There is a wide spread of responses, with no clear correlation between the number of responses and the extent on the scale of 1 to 10, to which respondents consider the streets of Maresfield are safe and pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. This represented in an averagescore of 5.3. There are mixed views on how people feel about the existing safety and quality of the streets in Maresfield. Table 5: Responses to Question 3 by Score
The quantum of development proposed, many residents consider that 420 homes are too many and a reduced number should be considered. Adjust the mix of land uses including the provision of small business units / shops as well as community facilities including GP, School expansion and recreation space. The integration of development including the design of future buildings and the preservation of existing village character.
This summary is not intended to be comprehensive, but represents the grouping of the most frequently occurring views and suggestions.
14
Number of Responses
11
8 7 6
6
6 4
4 2
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven Eight
2
Nine
Ten
Scale 1 to 10
Table 6 overleaf shows the split of responses to question 3 by gender. Where respondents have either not provided their gender or a response to the question their response has not been counted. The average score for males is 5.7, whilst mean average for females is 4.6, which suggests that women have a slightly more critical view regarding the quality (safety and pleasantness) of the streets of Maresfield.
3.5 Workshop day 27th of April 2008
Table 6: Responses to Question 3 by Gender and Score
7
Male Female
Number of Responses
6 5
5
4
In total over 90 residents took par t in the workshop day with many also coming along for the evening session. The list of registered attendees as well as the professional team is attached to Appendix 4.
5
4 3
3
2 1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
Nine
Ten
0 One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven Eight
Scale 1 to 10
Table 7 shows similarly to the analysis of question 1, responses to the question split into two age groups, those below 50 and those above 50. The distribution of responses is mixed with no clear trend in terms of how different groups have responded to the question. This is reflected in the average for both age groups, which is 5 in both cases. Table 7: Responses to Question 3 by Age Group and Score
8
Below 50
The design team sought feedback from the attendees on the following six themes/topics relating to the initial masterplan and the information presented in the disseminated newsletter and on the day:
Street improvements
Land uses
Building heights
Amount
Open Space
Access
Number of Responses
Above 50
4
4
4
3 3
3 2
2
4
3
3
2 2
2 1
2
1 1
Key objectives of the workshop day were: 0
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven Eight
Nine
Scale 1 to 10
Ten
C) To understand to what extent the attendees feel the design team got it right or wrong so far? D) New ideas and concerns
The results of the questionnaire exercise are presented in full in Appendix 2 and it is recommend to read the comments provided particularly questions 2 in more detail. In the following section we are going to present the results from the 8 workshops sessions.
15
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
In the following we present the results of each session.
Workshop session 1
Group 1 Thoughts
Workshop session 1 (10am to 11:45am) was attended by 42 residents. After the presentation and the 42 participants split up into three facilitated break-out groups.
The results of the traffic light method for each break-out group are shown in the table below.
(Photographic evidence is attached to Appendix 4)
Morning Session Topic
Group 1
Group 2 Group 3
Wider traffic calming needed toward east of village (Millwood Lane) Calming good – but offset by extra numbers Impact of Uckfield Tesco (too small and traffic) Concern at vehicle numbers at Southern roundabout Employment facilities exist off-site - don’t need in development 3 Storeys will encourage flats – More bungalows Amount too many! Doubles numbers and cars Opposed to losing existing open land.
Street Improvements
Land uses
Solutions?
Building Heights Amount
1. 2. .
Spread new housing – Nor th & South – not in a satellite (develop all around) Lower height Fewer homes – don’t lose open space
Open Space
Questions
Access
1. 2.
= heading in the right direction; = some aspects are ok and others not; or = heading in the wrong direction.
.
Sewage? = where treated Infrastructure in place first? Range of homes?
3 Top Concerns 1. 2. .
Amount (impact on village) Building heights and appearances Access
Group 2 Thoughts Inadequacies of traffic surveys
Millwood lane, Cobdown Lane Under (...?) in to Nursery Lane – in par ticular rush hour.
Traffic Calming
16
Straight half mile Why not traffic humps? Soft landscaping Cobbled surface Traffic lights
Group 3 Land Use
Density is too high Phasing & integration School expansion – double of the size – is there enough space? Should a new school be built in the new development? (4 New classrooms and associated facilities – must consult with school) Retirement accommodation close to village centre Integration of affordable housing – needs to be done carefully Any scope of Medical Centre? Or GP’s? More allotments
Building Heights
Mix
Thoughts
Amount
Will be determined by WDC What happens to other uses if housing numbers fall? Impact on Tesco etc.
Open Space
Eco learning areas should be a community facility – include a self-guided walk. Any building in eco-area could be abused (would need to be vandal proof) Area ok – should not be reduced!
Access
Introduce speed reduction to 30mph at Budletts roundabout entrance to village Investigate potential for access from bypass – slip roads off existing roundabouts (instead of access through Persimmon land)
Location of biomass plant Management of biomass plant / P.O.S. Traffic numbers / off site works Pressure on surrounding lanes Construction traffic Open space – scale/location Bigger area near centre of P.O.S Persimmon land. Need to consider bringing them into the team Number of school children from development 400 – 500 dwelling too much!! Phasing of development impor tant – longer Maximum average of density of 35 dph Workshop uses – traffic / white van man / relocation Mix of 2-3 storeys School Hill – one way Footbridge to school Weight restriction on traffic Design and location of access on School Hill Through route Amount of increase in traffic if Downlands happens
3 Top Concerns
Amount of development Traffic P.O.S. (Public open spaces)
Waste
Foul sewage
3 Top Concerns
Traffic solutions – including lanes Phasing Balance & mix of uses (school) Access to the site 17
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
Workshop session 2
Group 4
Workshop session 2 (2pm to 3:45pm) was attended by 29 residents. After the presentation the 29 participants split up into two facilitated break-out groups.
Thoughts
The results of the traffic light method for each break-out group are shown in the table below. (Photographic evidence is attached to Appendix 4)
Afternoon 1
Topic
Group 4
Group 5
Street Improvements Land uses Building Heights Amount
Open Space Access
= heading in the right direction; = some aspects are ok and others not; or = heading in the wrong direction.
Road design to narrow – account for real behaviour Business space not needed – army camp exists Wider impact of development in Maresfield leads to big impact on Batts Bridge roundabout and mini roundabout in centre village Provide access to bypass to build on existing access – provide new slip road Concern at future development on open space – will be built one day? Peak time traffic lights on edge village Suggest chevrons as traffic calming to maintain spacing Infrastructure issues? Need E/A to look at existing drainage issues and Downlands water supply Don’t need new pub and new post office New retail needed Some concern at process and lack of previous knowledge and lack of consultation No parking at Uckfield station and Buxted station Review proposals, talk to people, look for other sites Favour 2 storey homes Need more information of housing types and room numbers Need for new school provision – but not in open space! Small school is an attraction
3 Top Concerns
18
Amount Access (especially mini roundabout in centre of village) Street impacts, design etc.
Group 5 Thoughts
Traffic priority in the centre of the village – is a roundabout required? – Preference to keep roundabout. – stop line at the top of the school hill. Access needs to be made clear. – Particularly across persimmon site. Impacts of traffic from development upon the village – increase in vehicles from development. Preference for speed bumps/raised platforms. Residents on straight half mile do not want street lighting. Streetscape improvements are required regardless of the delivery of development. Relocating parking is considered positive. Concern relating to vehicular access to shops. Concern relating to security of green space against further development. Shops should be closely related to village centre. Master plan should show extent of land to the bypass. Safety of access to school - new bridge. No preference for three storey building heights. 420 homes is too much. Affordability – desperate need for more affordable homes. Disagreement regarding tenure split / requirement for social rented housing. Whole village should manage open space – community trust. New road should not become a rat run through the development. Concern about the type of employment use and associated noise / vehicular movements.
Vehicle weight restrictions through village – requires road traffic order. School bus access on site. Uckfield bus service not to be re routed. Acceptable housing quantum if development were to come forward 200-300.
3 Top Concerns
Quantum of development too high. Impact on village character Development must be integrated. Is integration possible?
19
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
Workshop session 3 Workshop session 3 (4pm to 6:45pm) was attended by 20 residents. After the presentation the 20 participants split up into three facilitated break-out groups. The results of the traffic light method for each break-out group are shown in the table below. (Photographic evidence is attached to Appendix 4)
Afternoon 2 Topic
Group 6 Group 7
Group 8
Street Improvements
Land uses Building Heights
Amount
Open Space
Access
= heading in the right direction; = some aspects are ok and others not; or = heading in the wrong direction.
Group 6 Thoughts
20
Concern that some development may be forced on Maresfield if don’t agree to scheme. Bypass highest speed section of A22 – more housing may lead to more accidents – must calm bypass by new junction. Junction on bypass to slow speed and add access. Potential to close School Hill – but would affect residents This scheme is at top end of range of 350500 (220-420) => over-developed Large service vehicles will end using roads for cottage industries Bell Lane, Uckfield exists for workshops and site near Powder Mill Cottage, Oakwood Park Ridgmont
Concern at potential noise from A22 to neighbouring houses Persimmon planned a high band noise screen Scheme must respect setting of 4 listed buildings – open space should be more extensive to protect these An area already put asides village green / open space in perpetuity adjacent to Persimmon (development) – extend area and enhance footpaths, not fill with shops etc. Some suppor t for housing south side if site must be developed Should it also be removed away from by pass side Group has never seen so many cars near rec. Ground as 100 – not a big problem. Issue of trust with assumptions Concern at anti-social behaviour from rec. garden parking Clarify definition of ‘possible shopping’ – concern at link to Rec. Garden Parking Local shops are a nostalgic notion – not practical The listed buildings are an impor tant countryside heritage Is site allocated in options repor t? Is discussion premature? Have principles of development here been examined? Are other areas in WDC going through this process? Could Maresfield be unnecessary? Scale is too big to maintain village character? Can infrastructure take the extra development? Concern of location of ‘civic amenities’ – e.g. bottle banks etc – should be more central (see setting of L. Bidgs)
3 Top Concerns
Amount Land uses Open spaces ( around recreational ground and houses)
Group 7 Thoughts Traffic Traffic lights Volume of traffic Accounts needs to taken of local lanes as part of traffic assessment Bridge to school Relocation of school Access to bypass Scheme not integrated with village Car parking – location Width of roads P.O.S. (Public open spaces)
Land Use
Management of space Protection of land for the future Sport facilities – football New village hall Access
Use of park farm access to shops Bypass To many an wrong place Number of dwellings
Less Height
2 / max 3
3 Top Concerns
Need for affordability Do we need that quantum
Group 8 Thoughts
Impact upon lanes – Underhill, Nursery Lane, Cobdown and Millwood Lane – Not addressed! Strong entrance to village at Batts Bridge and traffic calming on Batts Bridge Road Concern regarding use of through road in development as a rat run Concerns regarding additional impact of waste site/recycling plant on village traffic flows and bypass. New homes are an additional pressure
Concern regarding urbanisation – street furniture / lighting etc. School site endowed to the village Revive the heart of the village – locally based shops are preferable Viability of extra shops – are they realistic? Requirement for health centre / GP practise – New provision in Uckfield – Community space for part time surgery No three storey building heights Maintain key views across site to centre including church Realistic consideration of parking provision – more than the statutory minimum / at least 2 cars per household
Amount
Street improvements
Proposed school crossing is considered unsafe Pinch points encourage dangerous driving Pinch points currently inappropriately sited Rydon Homes proposal included foot bridge to school Same support for street scope improvements in village centre – is it realistic in terms of potential in traffic demand Concern regarding potential loss of roundabout in village centre Re introduce 20mph speed limit
Confirmation of community ownership – public spaces – in perpetuity Recreation ground committee letter to MRG Extensions are already being considered to existing pavilion Should consider access from little chef – conflicting opinions Concern about construction of traffic Traffic calming measures will reduce local vehicular movements through development
3 Top Concerns
Amount Impact on the village in general Loss of existing identity
21
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
Consensus Session The evening session (7pm to 8pm) started with a 15 minutes delay. The design team estimates that over 60 residents attended the evening session where the result sheets of all eight break-out groups including the poster showing thoughts/ ideas and key concerns were assembled and presented as a walk-in exhibition.
During the workshop day par ticular during the second afternoon session, it came apparent that a number of residents would like to get involved in the on-going consultations between the MRG and/or other resident groups in the village and the design team. The following action points were noted during that debate concerned with the question how to take this process forward (in order of items as noted during the discussion): 1. 2. . . 5.
The table below shows the traffic light results from all 8 break-out groups over the six themes the design team sought feedback on. (Photographic evidence provided in Appendix 4)
6. 7.
Figure 8: Results of traffic light exercise (all 8 break-out groups)
Morning Session
Topic Street Improvements Land uses Building Heights Amount Open Space Access
22
Group 1
Group 2 Group 3
A public forum to be held, not led by Maresfield Renaissance Group Suggestions that Ken Ogden should organise the above. Also suggestion that process should be independently led. MRG could carry on leading process if more open and representative. There should be representation from all areas of Maresfield. A meeting was requested in 3 months time for formal repor t back. Matthew Tunley (David Wilson Homes) offered to provide feedback at Village Fete and at a formal meeting. = heading in the right direction; = some aspects are ok and others not; or = heading in the wrong direction. Afternoon 1
Group 4 Group 5
Afternoon 2
Group 6
Group 7 Group 8
04 Findings & Next Steps Newsletter one Comments Cards – results In total, 59 feedback slips were received during the 2 week consultation period (19th of April to 2nd may 2008).
The analysis of the sample showed the following:
Workshop day findings
62% (31) of respondents being male versus 38% (20) females 96% of those who responded live in Maresfield Residents aged 35 and younger are underrepresented in the sample The male over 50’s population is over represented in the sample A significant proportion (34 out of 59) of individuals particularly those aged 50 and older believe that the draft masterplan will not result in a positive addition to the village. The average score is 2.5 ranging from 1 to 10 as possible average score. Asked about the safety and pleasantness of the streets of Maresfield are at the moment, a wide spread of responses is evident. This is represented in an average score of 5.3. The average score for males is 5.7, whilst mean average for females is 4.6, which suggests that women have a slightly more critical view regarding the quality (safety and pleasantness) of the streets in Maresfield.
Over 90 residents and local stakeholders provided feedback during the workshop sessions. The results are all recorded in this interim repor t and its appendices.
Some of the most commonly provided suggestions relating directly to improvements to the development proposals are as follows:
Do not build homes at all / the village is not suitable for development. Existing traffic concerns need to be addressed with particular reference to village traffic speeds and existing calming measures. As well as future traffic concerns, with particular reference to the proposed site access and future traffic volumes in the village. The quantum of development proposed, many residents consider that 420 homes are too many and a reduced number should be considered. Adjust the mix of land uses including the provision of small business units / shops as well as community facilities including GP, School expansion and recreation space.
The integration of development including the design of future buildings and the preservation of existing village character.
As par t of each individual break-out sessions the par ticipants were asked to agree on their top three concerns. The top tree concerns identified in each of the eight workshop sessions are as follows:
Amount (impact on village) Building heights and appearances Access Traffic solutions – including lanes Phasing Balance & mix of uses (school) Access to the site Amount of development Traffic P.O.S. (Public open spaces) Amount Access (especially mini roundabout in centre of village) Street impacts, design etc. Quantum of development too high Impact on village character Development must be integrated. Is integration possible? Amount Land uses Open spaces ( around recreational ground and houses) Need for affordability Do we need that quantum Amount Impact on the village in general Loss of existing identity
23
Interim Report on Public Consultation Activities in 2008 | Maresfield Village Extension
Although, it is essential to study the details including the ideas and thoughts provided, the main purpose of the workshop day was to achieve an understanding of the extent the attendees feel the design team is moving in the right direction. The table below summarises the individual traffic light results calculated by adding up the number of green/amber or red lights per theme. Figure 9: Summary table of traffic light results (all 8 break-out groups)
The design team would like to thank the attendees of the workshop day for making time in their diaries which resulted in a well attended public event. The feedback provided as well as the new ideas and concerns put forward at the workshop day and through the received newsletter questionnaires will help the design team to validate and refine initial masterplan proposals over the summer.
Lessons Learnt and Next Steps
Topic Street improvements Land uses
0
0
5
3
0
0
0
5
2
1
Building heights
3
0
3
1
1
Amount
0
0
0
2
6
Open Space
2
1
3
2
0
Access
0
1
3
3
1
= heading in the right direction; = some aspects are ok and others not; or = heading in the wrong direction. The list of key concerns ought to be considered in conjunction with more detailed feedback presented in the previous chapter of this interim report. However, an attempt to summarise the key concerns agreed in the eight groups , the results of the traffic light sessions and the comments card anaysis, shows a good degree of overlap. Based on this feedback, it can be inferred that the following issues are the primary areas for fur ther refinement of the masterplan proposals:
Reducing the amount of development Improving the identity of the village Improving the integration of the new and old part Reducing the additional traffic impact Improving the street designs; and Refining / further validation of the current mix and location of land-uses particularly the public open spaces
24
Workshop format with traffic light method and ‘thoughts poster’ as well as the meeting in the evening worked well and should be used again adapted to exhibition style event later in the year The poster, used during the workshop day asking how people rate the scale of the masterplan’s positive addition to the village, is to be repeated after revision process is completed Notification of public events at least four weeks prior to event including usage of local village magazine and posters as well as website Increase the number of newsletters disseminated in Maresfield from 800 to 1500 Newsletter two shall present the changes which occurred through the consultations with residents and stakeholders There is a need to devise suitable methods to engage more with younger people (below 36) Review details presented in this repor t and organise design team workshops to devise schedule of required changes to initial masterplan Extend geographical coverage of local traffic surveys and parking situation around recreational ground Publication of consultation repor t on website and hard copies available at post office and village shop Submission of this Interim Consultation Repor t to Wealden District Council Presentation of initial masterplan proposals to Parish Council Arrange future meetings with local representative group, possibly an extended MRG, nominated by the Parish Council
Space for your Notes and Comments:
25