CASE STUDYFOSSE VILLAGES

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING

ONE OF 17 PILOT SCHEMES IN THE FIRST WAVE OF

NEIGBOURHOOD PLANNING UNDER THE LOCALISM ACT

2

Mike Lee

• Chairman of Blaby South Community Forum for 3½ years. Also now Chairman of the Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan Group (FVNP)

• Formerly on Sapcote PC for 18 years, Chairman for 5 terms.

• Resident of Stoney Stanton/Sapcote since 1975.• Some experience of demographic and development

planning in the UK and overseas through the RGS, Industry and New Towns Commission in the 1970’s.

3

What are the “Fosse Villages”? A more recognisable name for the

Blaby South Forum Area! A Very Distinct Area of Rural Villages Bounded

by Major Virtually Conjoined Settlements

• Leicester Forest West*

• Huncote• Thurlaston• Croft• Potters Marston*

* Parish Meetings

• Elmesthorpe• Stoney Stanton• Sapcote• Aston Flamville*• Sharnford• Wigston Parva*

4

THE FOSSE VILLAGES

5

WHY FOSSE VILLAGES?• It was perceived that the Blaby South Community

Forum had achieved a measure of success with strong participation and support from both residents and the Parish Councils /Meetings.

• Blaby South is a rural area as opposed to the two other more “suburban” and developed Blaby areas; it has very active Parish Councils.

• The villages recognise that they have much in common and that development in one has consequences for the others.

• Thanks to the strong support of both LCC and BDC the area was put forward to the DCLG as a pilot candidate area and the only aggregation of Parishes.

6

COMMON OPPORTUNITIES/PROBLEMS

• THROUGH TRAFFIC. ESPECIALLY HGV’S. NOISE/ EXHAUST POLLUTION

• DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES FOR UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING.

• OVER DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGE STRUCTURES. CONGESTION.

• LACK OF FACILITIES FOR YOUNG AND OLD, ESPECIALLY LEISURE AND TRANSPORT. LACK OF ROADSIDE FOOTPATHS.

7

• DEVELOPER ACQUISITION OF VILLAGE COLLAR LAND.

• LOSS OF FACILITIES LIKE SHOPS• VERY STRONG INDIVIDUAL

COMMUNITIES.• SOME SOURCES OF EMPLOYMENT,

MANY SMALL & HOME BASED BUSINESSES.

• PLEASANT COUNYTRYSIDE. • TRAVELLER PRESSURES. • OPPORTUNISTIC APPLICATIONS!

8

WIGSTON PARVA

9

B4114 SHARNFORD

10

THE FOSSE WAY

11

CROFT HILL

12

SO WHAT IS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING?

• The replacement of the existing Whitehall ► County ► District system by the development of a community based Neighbourhood Plan, developed in this case by the Parishes working together.

• The plan will developed within the next 10 months and will be subject to scrutiny by BDC, LCC and ultimately by scrutineers from the DCLG. It will accord with the BDC Core Strategy to which the FVNP group has made input.

• It may then be required to be submitted for referendum approval before adoption. This may have its problems!

• Matters such as Highways, Waste and Mineral Extraction remain within the LCC bailiwick.

13

• The plan must :-– Comply with legal/procedural requirements.– Have regard to National, Regional and Local

Planning Policies.– Take proper account of existing relevant

information and carry out any necessary research to produce a robust, justifiable, evidence based recommendation.

– Recommend appropriate policies and proposals and meet real neighbourhood development requirements.

– Be the result of proper community consultation.

14

Methodology

• The plan will be developed by each Parish Council/Meeting and integrated into the final Neighbourhood Development Plan proposal.

• It will be developed by consultation with input and consideration by residents, community groups and local businesses; plus transport, heritage, leisure, future development needs, social housing, facility, employment and environmental considerations.

• The style of any development is also a consideration, to ensure that it compliments the local visual environment.

15

• This is a new experience for Parish Councils and strong support is being provided by LCC, BDC and a project link officer from DCLG, Pamela Roberts (formerly MHDC).

• In addition the Chairman, with LCC and BDC officers has already attended meetings at the DCLG/T&CPA/PAS and a “Planning For Real” Seminar run in the area for all the FVNP Parishes.

• A problem is that of co-ordination and Parish Council delegation - normally this has to be via the Clerk. DCLG guidance is being sought!

16

• To meet the requirements a Joint Working Board has been established consisting of the Chair or deputed member of each PC and their Clerk. Each PC/PM has a vote, whilst the group chairman has only a casting vote. Its purpose is to guide the whole project.

• Overall Terms of Reference have been agreed to ensure that the Board operates in a clear and transparent manner.

• One PC – Sapcote has been appointed as fund holder. A Vice Chairman has also been appointed.

17

• Within the Board a working group has been established with support from LCC/BDC and the RCC, and a professional Planning Consultant engaged as Project Manager.

• Initial Governance, Communication, Resource and Appraisal Strategies have been developed.

• A public launch/communication programme is being developed to commence in May, with stakeholder communication/training. This is being done in conjunction with the RCC.

• This will be followed by exhibition events in each village and strategies for the plan’s agreement, results presentation, followed by scrutiny/inquiry, plus finalisation/referendum approval and delivery.

• The Project Manager will also be required to ensure budget compliance and to ensure that, as appropriate, external funding is sought.

18

FVNP IDENTITY

19

Risks, Opportunities and Method

• So far it has been apparent that much of the national procedure and process has not been fully thought through and the pilots are having to dispel “fog” levels.

• There is a very considerable learning curve for all concerned! It is a highly innovatory process.

• Whilst the Fosse Villages have some extremely experienced Clerks, they will be working together to assist less experienced colleagues, with long term more general benefits. Parish Meetings are linked with adjacent PC’s.

20

• The process is very expensive and beyond Parish Council precept resources. It also involves substantial extra Clerk time/materials etc.

• The DCLG allocated each pilot £20K, but the cost of a multiple body scheme is obviously more than a unitary one.

• Fortunately additional grants have been made by LCC, BDC and the BSCF. This will still require additional support as the project progresses.

• BDC has agreed to fund the scrutiny and referendum stages.

• There is one opportunity to develop the neighbourhood plan and it must be right!

21

• Fortunately LCC and BDC as well as DCLG have provided unstinting officer support.

• Unfortunately some national statements from Westminster citing the rationale behind the policy as being intended to generate economic growth and reduce planning control have already damaged the policy’s public credibility. This has been worsened by comment that developers should be involved in its design.

• Credibility is vital for the policy’s success. This is having to be addressed by local communication.

22

• The past policy of imposed development volumes, however professionally executed, has already produced problems and the failure to extract and employ appropriate section 106 investment has exacerbated this.

• Many villages have already been over developed beyond the capacity of their centres to safely handle existing traffic e.g. Stoney Stanton, Sharnford and Sapcote. THERE HAS BEEN NO IMPROVEMENT IN THE AREA’S ROAD NETWORK FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS!

23

• The lack of effective Public Transport, is being still further reduced, making truly sustainable development in many areas impractical. Additionally Public Transport cannot meet the destination diversity required in the FVNP area.

• There are already numbers of long term unsold new houses in the south western end of the area, with travel cost being cited as a source of sales resistance.

• Developers are for profit organisations, and prefer the development which is most profitable – often 3/4/5 bedroom detached houses. There are concerted attempts to exploit the window of change for previously unacceptable applications.

24

• This would often appear to fail to meet local housing needs, which requires more entry level and social housing to accommodate the younger “home grown” population.

• Additionally, given the opportunity of suitable and adaptable housing, many older people would welcome the opportunity of smaller more affordable/manageable housing, particularly in their own village.

• This would dramatically free up the “middle” family housing market.

25

CONCLUSIONS

• All of the above has to be researched and verified or adapted to be robustly incorporated in the plan, which must be acceptable to the residents.

• It will be a long and challenging process and we need all the help we can get!

• The successful passage of the Localism Act into law as a workable piece of legislation is obviously key to the whole process.

26

FOSSE VILLAGES FROM

HIGH CROSS TO HUNCOTE

QUESTIONS?