Response to Draft Local Plan

West Oxfordshire Draft Local Plan consultation document

West Oxfordshire District Council's Draft Local Plan was published for consultation in October 2012. It contains a wide range of new strategies and provisions that have direct relevance to the aims and objectives of Beacon Project Charlbury, especially in its recognition of the aims of the UK National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act. 


The consultation period closed on 19 December 2012, and Beacon Project Charlbury submitted the following specific comments:


3.4. The need for additional housing provision at rural service centres is recognised [Charlbury is designated a rural service centre of the West Oxfordshire district]. 

4.4. The need to sustain rural areas is recognised. 

4.5. The requirement to address the needs of those who cannot afford to buy or rent suitable market housing, including those who wish to self-build is recognised. 

4.6. The overall strategy principles are lauded. 

4.11. The need to respect the local character is welcome although it must be noted that with changes in energy policy, rural as well as urban development may change in nature and appearance due to increasing environmental design requirements such as orientation, passive energy gain, materials and substantially increased Building Regulation requirements under Part L from 2013. The Local Plan should acknowledge that residential design may not in future be a traditional version of the Cotswolds' form but an interpretation of it. 

4.33. 4.34. The additional requirement for housing and the demographic changes for key members of the community in rural areas are recognised. 4.35. The need for an imaginative approach to development including self-build is recognised. What is missing is an acknowledgement that a flexible approach to interpreting the Local Plan may be required to accommodate this approach.




4.37. This is a valuable addition to the Local Plan but clarity is required as if affordable housing is required, formal recognition of the interpretation of this important policy is essential. 

4.93. A separate site allocation approach for suitable development would be welcome as it appears that the development of approved Neighbourhood Plans is likely to be a lengthy process. 

5.32 This is a crucial item in the Draft Local Plan for the Beacon Project Charlbury. It reads:


"The NPPF refers to the possibility of allowing some market housing in rural areas where this would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs. Any such proposal will be considered against the relevant policies of the Local Plan including in particular Core Policy 2 – Locating Development in the Right Places. Where the site is in a location that would not normally be considered appropriate for new housing, it will be for the developer or landowner to demonstrate not only why the site is suitable for housing, but also why a traditional rural exception site approach, i.e. one with 100% affordable housing, is not appropriate or achievable. In other words, they will need to demonstrate why the market housing is needed to subsidise the delivery of the affordable housing. In such cases, any market housing would be expected to be a subsidiary element of a predominantly affordable housing scheme."


The Beacon Project welcomes the provision for more flexibility in terms of the delivery of affordable housing, especially with regard to cross-subsidy by market housing. Since many landowners will not sell land for affordable only given the low land prices available for this, a more flexible planning approach will be necessary in order to achieve more affordable housing of a high environmental standard, as well as releasing more appropriate land for community housing projects, self-build projects, and other developments that will keep rural communities alive and dynamic places to live. 

SUMMARY

Generally, the proposed changes in the Draft Local Plan are welcome, however, for a group such as ours, representing a section of the local community who have been trying to self-manage a much-needed community housing project for some years, there remain what at times seem insurmountable obstacles. There are several important clauses in the NPPF which do not appear to be specifically addressed within the Draft Local Plan although general references might apply. These are highlighted as they have considerable significance for a group such as The Beacon Project:

•               The NPPF states that policies in local plans should follow the approach of presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay. All plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development, with clear policies that will guide how the presumption should be applied locally (NPPF para 15). This does not appear to be formally acknowledged in the Local Plan as all presumptions and national objectives are subservient to the Local Plan conditions.

•                The NPPF states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no prospect of a site being used for allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities (NPPF para 22).

•               The NPPF states that if sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre (NPPF para 23). Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility (NPPF para 24).

•               At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking (NPPF para 14). This sections states that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and local plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. For decision-taking, the NPPF advises where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in this framework taken as a whole or, specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted. (NPPF para 14).

•               The NPPF also states that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (NPPF para 55) and that Local Plans should allocate sites to promote development and flexible use of land, bringing forward new land where necessary and provide details on form, scale access and quantum where appropriate (NPPF para 157) and addresses the needs for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups within the community... sic,  and caters for housing demand and the scale of housing necessary to meet this demand (NPPF para 159).

•               The planning authority is charged by the NPPF to use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the framework including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period (NPPF para 47).

  


Changing economic and demographic circumstances, the Localism Bill, Community Right to Build and the National Planning Policy Framework all indicate that a community group such as the Beacon Project should be able to undertake a sustainable community-based project as most stakeholders agree these objectives are essential to keep balanced rural communities. The Draft Local Plan offers encouragement through some new clauses referred to above, yet these steps are all meaningless unless the Local Plan is interpreted flexibly and with the intent to achieve positive outcomes as set out in the NPPF. The principles required to encourage sustainable community-led self-help development especially in the provision of balanced housing now exist, but an innovative interpretation of the changing legislation and overall direction indicated by the NPPF will be necessary from a planning policy perspective.

WODC planning meeting

Forest Road site [source: google maps]

On 13 July 2012 three members of the Beacon Project, along with two members of Charlbury Town Council, met with West Oxfordshire District Council planning officers and other staff, to discuss the proposal for a co-housing and affordable housing scheme for a site off Forest Road, Charlbury, owned by the Cornbury Estate.

The site was at one time earmarked for possible expansion of the adjacent industrial area near Charlbury station. A lively discussion on the topic of sustainable communities followed, as well as the new planning environment of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act (Community Right to Build).

The Beacon Project has followed up this meeting with a written response, which has been answered by WODC planning officers. The Project is currently reviewing its strategy for the Forest Road site project and will post more details soon.

Town Council presentation

Members of the Beacon Project Charlbury will be presenting the project's outline plans to the newly-elected Charlbury Town Council at its first meeting on Monday 25 June 2012.

It is the first stage of community consultation about the project, and the best place to start.

The council members have all been sent an outline document relating to the Beacon Project's proposals for a site on the edge of Charlbury, which is owned by the Cornbury Estate.

If the Town Council are broadly supportive of the project's proposals then the second stage of community consultation about the project's aims and objectives will begin in earnest, and details will be posted on this blog.

New BPC logo!

Beacon Project Charlbury now has a new logo which will be used in communications.

Visit to Springhill cohousing, Stroud

Springhill cohousing, Stroud. Photo: Chris Morton

Three members of the Beacon Project visited Springhill cohousing in Stroud, Gloucestershire, on Saturday 24 March 2012. The Springhill development was built in 2002 on a 2 acre sloping site near Stroud town centre. It is the first purpose-built cohousing development in the country, with about 80 residents and a three-storey community building where they all enjoy three shared meals a week. These meals are cooked on a rota so that they all cook one meal a month. Eating together regularly is central to the community's vision of daily interaction, support and sharing.

How it all got started is of real interest. By the Autumn of 2000 builder and developer David Michael had negotiated to buy the land and he then attracted some ten households, all of whom purchased 5,000 £1 shares in the Company formed to buy the land, and chose which house type they were going to purchase. The choice was 5, 4 or 3 bed houses, and 1 and 2 bed flats. Meanwhile David had worked out a system of plot purchase and everyone paid according to the size of their dwelling.

 

The lane at Springhill. Photo: Chris Morton

Originally, the Springhill group were keen to include as many environmentally friendly design elements as possible. They looked at recycling grey water, considered a centralised heating system, rejected reed bed on grounds of space, and applied successfully to the DTI for a £320,000 grant for photovoltaics on the roofs of the houses. They decided against grey water on grounds of cost, but went for Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) which replicates the way rainwater naturally drains into the soil, rather than being rushed off the site through culverts and drains. They also agreed on high levels of insulation (150mm Warmcell) and triple glazing. The householders have the option to install solar panels on the roofs if they wish. Since Springhill is an urban site with no spare land, the community is not able to grow food, although a few raised beds for communal vegetables exist. A few chickens are also kept by one household, who then sells the eggs on cheaply to other households.

Two bed flats at Springhill. Photo: Chris Morton

One of the regrets expressed to us our during our visit was that they didn't build the all-important community building first, since a number of original plans were sidelined due to lack of funds when it finally got built. The most important of these was a communal laundry. Since all the individual houses were built one by one, they all had washing machines installed, meaning that a communal laundry was unnecessary. A communal laundry would have significantly lessened the water consumption and carbon footprint of the development, as well as increase community interaction in the communal building.

Three storey community building at Springhill. Photo: Chris Morton

Nonetheless, the community building is an evident success. Due to the slope of the site, the building is unusually accessed on the top floor from one end of the site, and the ground floor from the bottom of the site. The top floor is the kitchen and dining room, which is the most used on a daily basis. The middle room is for meetings, events and performances, and is comfortably kitted out with sofas. Residents said that this is little used as a communal living room, but was frequently used for other activities. The ground floor was least used, and had been turned over to teenagers to play pool, as well as accommodating a small workshop.

Springhill from the park entrance. Photo: Chris Morton

As a member of the Springhill community, one is expected to undertake 20 hours of communal activity each year, such as clearing common drains, cutting back foliage, gardening or other suggested tasks. This is a significantly lower commitment than many other cohousing developments, especially where significant environmental site management tasks are required. The Hockerton Housing Project, for instance, requires residents to undertaken 300 hours per year, mostly due to the demanding self-sufficiency tasks involved in their water, waste and electricity provision.

Flats at Springhill. Photo: Chris Morton

Buying and selling properties within Springhill is straightforward. Anyone wishing to sell their home either obtains an independent, external valuation or simply chooses the figure they want, and then informs the Cohousing Company of their intention to sell. The Company then has 28 days to nominate someone from the waiting list or internally to make an offer to purchase. If no offer is forthcoming from this source, the vendor can then put the property on the open market at the same price. The seller is not obliged to sell to a Cohousing Company nominee but most people have preferred to pass their homes onto other co-housers who are scaling up or down.

With thanks to Neil and Anne for organizing our visit to Springhill, and the other residents who took the time to talk to us. Some of the information in this blog post is taken from Max Comfort's useful document 'Springhill Cohousing - a personal outline. November 2007'. Visit the Springhill website.

Little Lees affordable housing

Source: Witney Gazette, 7 March 2012

A brief report in the Witney Gazette confirms that fifteen new affordable homes (housing built by a Registered Social Landlord) are to be built on the site in Little Lees, Charlbury, by Soha Housing Association. The £2.2 million scheme has been supported by a £200,000 grant from West Oxfordshire District Council. The building work is expected to be completed by late this year or early next.

Visit to Hockerton Housing Project

View from roof over photovoltaic cells and conservatory
roofs, towards the lake. Photo: Chris Morton

Two Beacon Project Charlbury members attended an introductory day at Hockerton Housing Project on Saturday 28 January 2012 to learn more about this important environmental project near Newark. 


Although the Hockerton project dates back to 1998 it took a considerable amount of time to develop some of the infrastructure, especially the wind turbines, due to planning delays. The five houses at Hockerton, built together as a terrace, make use of high thermal mass building materials, including concrete and layers of insultation, to keep heat loss from the structure to a minimum. 


Warm air is generated within the southwest–facing conservatories fronting all the properties, which is then drawn into the house, only one room deep but spacious. The house itself is covered with a thick turf roof which slopes down towards the rear of the structure.

Turf roof sloping behind the Hockerton house terrace. Photo: Chris Morton

The houses remain warm throughout the year, with a variation of only four or five degrees between the summer and winter. The addition of a wood burner in the conservatories makes these spaces more usable in the winter months. Along the top of the conservatories runs a line of low maintenance photovoltaic cells, which generates one third of the energy needs of the project.


The remaining two thirds of the site's energy requirements is generated by two wind turbines, located in a field adjacent.

Wind turbines at Hockerton. Photo: Chris Morton

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Hockerton infrastructure is the water capture and treatment system that is used. Rain water that falls over the site is guided towards a lake that was dug in the clay soil in front of the houses. This lake also gives additional reflected light to the houses. From this lake water is pumped to another small lake on another part of the site where a bund was created from displaced earth at the highest point on the site. The intention was that gravity would enable water to be fed down into the houses from this point. Unfortunately the use of narrow pipes within the houses meant that there was insufficient pressure and a pump is needed to do this. This makes the use of the lake on the high bund somewhat redundant, and since it is also quite a distance from the houses it is also more difficult to maintain.

The small lake up on the bund supplies the houses with all their non-potable water needs. The water feeds through from the lake into a 3 foot deep sand filtration tank sunk into the earth, from where it feeds through to a holding tank from where it is drawn down on demand.

Sand filtration tank with insulated lid. Part of the non-potable
water system on the site. Photo: Chris Morton

For drinking water, another pump system draws water from the main lake through a series of filters (including UV treatment) to a separate tap in the sinks.


At one end of the main lake is the sewage treatment reed bed. The waste from the houses is fed through to a sump where it is rotated around a reed bed and naturally broken down. The cleaned water then moves through into the main lake system, where carp are kept.

View across lake to houses, with reed bed system to left. Photo: Chris Morton

The five houses that make up the Hockerton community are thereby self-sufficient in water and energy requirements. In addition to this, they also produce half of all the food they require on site. This is done in a variety of ways, all needing a significant time investment from all community members – set at 300 hours per year – which is agreed upon when they buy houses within the project. This agreement means that additions to the community are self-selecting in terms of who is prepared to undertake work on behalf of the whole community. Vegetables for instance are not grown in individual allotments owned by each household, but in common, with households undertaking gardening work for the entire group. Bees are also kept for honey, and a small herd of sheep to keep grass down and for a small supply of meat.

Conservatories and decking fronting houses. Photo: Chris Morton

There are many lessons that can be learned from the Hockerton Housing Project. The self-sufficiency systems are now tried and tested at Hockerton, and although they require constant maintenance, the benefits are significant, and not just in financial terms. The generation of electricity via small wind turbines works well, but  they only work at 50% efficiency, due to being located in a less than ideal location for wind as a result of planning restrictions. Hockerton village nearby also has a single large wind turbine which was financed with a share sale, and this would be a preferable model for Charlbury. A large turbine sited in a good wind location would benefit the whole community and reduce the need for a smaller turbine on any potential Beacon Project site. From an architectural point of view, the 'greenhouse' principle is shown to work well at Hockerton, with the conservatories serving to generate warmth for the whole house as well as being wonderful, light-filled spaces to live in. We were particularly struck however by the potential for turf covered structures, not only from a thermal point of view, but also in terms of reducing the visual impact of development.

Rural Exception Sites

source: Rural Housing Trust

In 1986, the Rural Housing Trust proposed – and went on to pioneer – a method of developing affordable homes which requires the participation and support of the local community. It is called the 'exception site' approach. Rural exception sites are now proven to successfully meet housing needs in the places they arise. It is a successful solution because the size of the development is guided by the identified local need, they are affordable for key workers and others, and they are for people either working or living locally, or who are from the area and would like to return for personal reasons, such as caring for relatives. Exception sites are not allocated for development in local plans/Local Development Frameworks. However, exceptional planning consent may be granted if:

• The District/Borough Council has a local needs planning policy 
• The site is well-related to the village development boundary
• There is a demonstrated current and likely future need for the proposed houses
• The proposed scheme meets the demonstrated needs in terms of size, price and tenure
• The proposed scheme conforms to all other planning policies, in terms of design, access, layout and materials
• There are adequate safeguards to ensure that the houses remain available for local people in perpetuity and cannot become part of the open market
• There is general local support, usually demonstrated through the Parish or Town Council, for the use of the site for this purpose.

This approach to building affordable housing in villages is now mainstream policy. It is supported by national government. It is also accepted at parish/town level because the aims are clear, local participation is positively promoted, and long term control of occupancy is guaranteed.

The Beacon Project is currently in discussions with both Charlbury Town Council leaders as well as West Oxfordshire District Council, to look closely at affordable housing needs in Charlbury and the sort of planning framework that would be most appropriate. It may be that the proposal of a rural exception site will be the best option, with an established national track record in bringing sustainable development. Given that the provisions for Community Right to Build as envisaged in the coalition Government's Localism Bill are yet to be fully understood or implemented, this may prove the best option locally in the short term.

in 2009 the Rural Housing Trust published an interesting fact sheet, called 10 Steps to achieving affordable housing on rural exception sites. Read.

Neighbourhood Planning Regulations

Source: Dept Communities and Local Govt.

In the consultation document on Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, published in October 2011 by the Department of Communities and Local Government, a number of recommendations are made about how Community Right to Build groups should be constituted:

13. For the purposes of paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 4C (community right to build orders) to the 1990 Act, the following additional conditions are prescribed—
(a) individuals who live or work in the particular area must have the opportunity to become members of the community organisation (whether or not others can also become members);
(b) the constitution of the community organisation must provide that— 
(i) individuals who live in the particular area control at least 51% of its voting rights;
(ii) one of its objectives is to provide a benefit for the local community;
(iii) any assets of the community organisation cannot be sold or developed except in a manner which the trust’s members consider benefits the local community;
(iv) any profits from its activities will be used to benefit the local community (otherwise than by being paid directly to members);
(v) in the event of the winding up of the community organisation or in any other circumstances where the community organisation ceases to exist, its assets must be transferred to another body corporate which has similar objectives; and
(vi) the organisation has at least 5 members, who are not related to each other, who live in the particular area.


The Beacon Project Charlbury currently meets all of these proposed stipulations for a CRTB group, and will be discussing ways of opening the membership of the project when a site is identified and the extent of potential membership is thereby known.

Community Right to Build

Source: Dept of Communities and Local Govt.

The Coalition Government's Localism Bill, which gained Royal Assent on November 15 2011 potentially introduces important new rights and powers to allow local communities to shape new development in their area. There are two strands to the Bill in this regard: Neighbourhood Development Plans would be taken forward by either town or parish councils to decide what development they would like to see in their area, which would then be put to a referendum of the local population. The second strand is the Community Right to Build initiative, which would enable community organisations to bring forward smaller scale development proposals that are sustainable and bring benefits to their communities. The Bill states that it envisages Community Right to Build in this way:

"As part of neighbourhood planning, the Bill gives groups of local people the power to deliver the development that their local community want. They may wish to build new homes, businesses, shops, playgrounds or meeting halls. A community organisation, formed by members of the local community, will be able to bring forward development proposals which, providing they meet minimum criteria and can demonstrate local support through a referendum, will be able to go ahead without requiring a separate traditional planning application. The benefits of the development, such as new affordable housing or profits made from letting the homes, will stay within the community, and be managed for the benefit of the community. There will be support for communities wishing to bring forward development under the community right to build, providing information, advice and signposting to relevant expertise."


This initiative sits within the wider context of a proposed major shift in planning in the UK to meet the housing crisis and to drive economic growth. The proposed – and controversial – National Planning Policy Framework for instance is based on  three premises: planning for prosperity, planning for people, and planning for places (environmental role). The controversial element is the strong presumption in favour of 'sustainable development', which is as yet to be defined. Within this new framework Local Authorities should:

• Prepare local plans to meet locally assessed development needs
• Approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay
• Grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date

In other words, where a proposal is consistent with an adopted neighbourhood plan it should be approved unless there is an overriding national interest reason not to, or the proposal impinges upon a site designated for nature conservation, for example under the EU Habitats Directive etc. There is an emphasis upon a 'plan-led' approach in contrast the present system of 'development control'. The sustainable component emphasises the natural and historic environment, full use of public transport, walking and cycling; strategies for health and well-being; promotion of renewable energy etc.


The Beacon Project Charlbury sees this as a potentially important step towards allowing sustainable, environmentally-friendly development in Charlbury which will bring benefits to the community in the form of more affordable, and better quality, housing, as well as potential employment.

Charlbury Quarry Site

Charlbury Quarry, Oxfordshire. Source: Google Maps

In October 2011 Beacon Project Charlbury approached the owner of the former Charlbury Quarry site off the Ditchley Road to discuss the possibility of the site as a location for the Project. The proposal suggested that a small sustainable eco development with affordable housing for the community could be located to the southwest of the site, with a management plan developed for the SSSI (site of special scientific interest for geology) area of the site, in conjunction with local and scientific groups. This would have allowed for community access and enjoyment of the whole of the site as well as an ongoing management plan for biodiversity and geological education.

In their reply to the proposal in November 2011 the owner of the site argued that the Project's proposals did not sufficiently maximise the economic potential of the site from his perspective, and that in the meantime the site would remain closed to public access, due to stringent insurance conditions, but would also be a haven for wildlife.