site appraisal and selection highworth neighbourhood plan

Site Appraisal and Selection Highworth Neighbourhood Plan

Final Report May 2016

2

LB Planning 2016 Site Appraisal Highworth

Contents

1. Introduction and Initial Shortlisting of Sites ................................................................................... 3

2. The Short-listed sites....................................................................................................................... 7

3. Consultation Process 2015 ............................................................................................................ 12

4. Final Sites Assessment .................................................................................................................. 14

5. Site Selection and Development Briefs ......................................................................................... 17

3


1. Introduction and Initial Shortlisting of Sites

1.1 The Highworth Neighbourhood Plan (HNP) is due to be formally consulted on shortly. An

important task of the plan is to allocate sites for residential development, in line with the strategic

requirement of the recently adopted Swindon Local Plan Part 1 (SLP1). The SLP1 states that

Highworth will need to find sites for at least 200 Dwellings to provide for the SLP1’s time period up

to 2026 (policy SD2 p36). As existing planning permissions and recent construction account for 88 of

these required dwellings, the HNP needed to find sites for at least 112 dwellings.

1.2 Led by Town Councillors, but including other local residents and stakeholders, a Neighbourhood

Planning Group (NPG) has been meeting regularly since 2012 to progress work on the HNP. The NPG

has undertaken several consultation exercises during this time, including two similar consultations in

2013 on the desirability of residential development on most of the open land in and around

Highworth. People attending the consultation were asked to indicate if they supported

development or protection of the sites. As the sites included important open space, this

consultation resulted in strong feelings about which sites should be protected, but also revealed

sites that the local community felt were better suited for development. The results of this

consultation are summarised in Table 1 Below.

Table 1: Results from the 2013 Sites Consultation Exercises

Site Supporting

'Protect'

Supporting

'Develop' Comments

Swindon Road Allotments 47.00% 3.00% Valued Allotment site

Lower Rec allotments 47.00% 3.00% Valued Allotment site

Park Avenue Allotments 42% 2.00% Valued Allotment site

Town Green 26% 3%

Useful Public Open Space and link to

countryside

r/o Priory Green & Cullerns 19.00% 3% Useful public open space

Edencroft 18.00% 5.00% Useful public Open Space

Haresfield Play Area 21.00% 10.00% Useful public open space

Haresfield Community Field 28.00% 12.00% Useful public open space

Crane Furlong Park 18.00% 29.00% Short-listed

R/o Crane Furlong 22.00% 30% Short-listed

Home Farm/Islay Triangle 18.00% 19.00% Short-listed

Home Farm 3 areas 17.00% 11.00% Useful public open space

4


The Village Greens 26.00% 6.00% Useful public open space

Newburgh Green 26.00% 6.00% Useful public open space

Top Field - Pentylands Park 40.00% 4% Useful public open space

Barra Field 42.00% 3.00% Useful public open space

Site Supporting

'Protect'

Supporting

'Develop'

Comments

Kilda Field 39.00% 11.00% Useful public open space

Pentyland Field (17) 38.00% 11.00% Useful public open space

Pentyland field (17a) 38.00% 14.00% Useful public open space

Upper Rec 48.00% 2.00% Useful public open space

Lower Rec 49.00% 2.00% Useful public open space

Golf Course 52.00% 2.00% Useful public open space

Land next to cemetery 22.00% 13.00% Short-listed

Land surrounding Roundhills

mead 17.00% 25%

Visual intrusion too great and contrary to

promotion of the Hilltop village and

setting aim.

Field at Eastrop 16.00% 23%

Recent designation as an ancient

monument

Field at Eastrop (North) 19.00% 18.00%

Recent designation as an ancient

monument

Land to N of Industrial Est. 9.00% 25.00% This site is designated for industrial use

Redlands 29.00% 19.00% Short-listed

Key to percentages:

35-50+% 0-7%

20-34% 8-15%

<20% >15%

Green Cells show the strongest support for protect, and the lowest for developing.

Yellow cells show a less pronounced desire to protect a site rather than develop it; white cells are the

sites most accepted for development from this consultation.

5


1.3 The 2013 sites consultation indicated valued open space and allotment land. These sites have

been excluded from the final shortlist of potential sites for residential development, and instead

designated as open space or Local Green Space as appropriate in the draft Highworth

Neighbourhood Plan. Land to the north of the Industrial Estate which is designated for employment

use has also been excluded from the shortlist. Additionally two sites at Eastrop were excluded due

to the recent formal designation of an ancient monument on much of the land.

1.4 A review of the Swindon Borough Council’s (SBC) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

(SHLAA) Document showed no other possible sites that would fit naturally into the existing town or,

due to bordering onto the urban area, would extend Highworth sensitively with regard to the

existing settlement boundary. Policy RA1 in the SLP1 informed decisions here, in particular the

requirement to

“maintain the separate identity of Highworth as a hill top market town and respect its

landscape setting”.

1.5 Besides the short-listed sites from the 2013 consultation, a further site, offered to the Town

Council after the 2013 consultation, was also included. As this site, ‘land off Shrivenham Road’ was

adjacent to the settlement boundary it was also shortlisted for further consideration. The two sites

at Crane Furlong have been considered jointly, resulting in five sites being shortlisted for further

consideration. These sites are discussed and described below. Figure 1 shows their location.

6


Figure 1: Location of the shortlisted sites in Highworth

1. Crane Furlong 2. The Triangle

3. Adjacent to Cemetery 4. Redlands

5. Shrivenham Road

1. 1.

2.

5. 4.

3.

7


2. The Short-listed sites.

2.1 Land at Crane Furlong: 2.32 Ha - current use agriculture and recreation

Consultation site above left; site for housing considered in assessment right.

2.1.1 The eastern section of the consultation site is owned by the Town Council on a lease from

Swindon Borough Council and is used for recreational purposes. The land was originally included

within the site, but only to be available for access to the rest of the site. The Town Council have

since decided however not to release their land, and so the site considered in the post consultation

assessment is only the section offered for housing, to the west.

2.1.2 The site slopes very gently to the north and is located on low-lying land (90 – 85m contours) to

the north of the town, adjacent to the Industrial estate and sewage works. There are no significant

flood risks associated with the site, although adjacent development is reported to have dealt with

small springs and ground water. It is a natural extension of the town, and infills between residential

development and the Industrial Estate, although it is outside the settlement boundary defined in the

previous Swindon Local Plan. It has been assessed in the SHLAA, sites 731 and 1135 refer.

2.1.3 Although little reference is found in the site description in the SHLAA, the Environmental Health

Department have indicated initial concerns about the proximity of the site to the sewage works and

industrial area; odours from the former and noise nuisance from the latter are possible issues.

Aerial View of Crane Furlong

8


2.2 Land adjacent to the Cemetery: 0.75Ha – current use agricultural

2.2.1 The site slopes gently down to the west, and lies outside the current settlement boundary. It is

crossed by the 125m contour and within 100m of the northern boundary a scarp slope descends into

the Bydemill Brook valley. Development of the site would therefore intrude into the countryside and

impact on the hilltop setting of Highworth to some extent. The site lies on the edge of the urban area

on the north side of Cricklade Road. It is bounded to the north by a public footpath and fields and to

the west by fields. To the east its boundary is the cemetery wall and to the south residential

development along Cricklade road, from which access would be taken to this site.

2.2.2 It is approximately 500m from the town centre. Schools and health services are all accessible.

The site was not considered in the SHLAA.

Aerial view of Cemetery, Cricklade Road and site to north of road and west of Cemetery

9


2.3 Triangle Site Home Farm: 0.5Ha – current use informal open space

2.3.1 The Triangle site is within the town on the Home Farm development of modern small and

medium market housing. The site is reasonably level, bordered on the NW side by St Michaels Road,

from which access would be taken. The NE side of the triangle site is bordered by residential

development, and on the south side a footpath and residential development border the site. There

are several semi-mature trees on the site.

2.3.2 The site is not in the SHLAA, currently being open space in the ownership of the Local

Authority. It is accessible to all services and just over 500m from the town centre (Market Square).

10


2.4 Redlands Site: 6.93 Ha – Current use agricultural

2.4.1 This site is outside of the current settlement boundary, but adjacent to it and partly infills

between existing development. It slopes gently to the south, and is 120m above RD at its lowest

point making it low-lying relative to the town on its southern boundary. It is approximately 500m

from the town centre. The eastern side of the site has been identified in the SHLAA as being visually

more intrusive in its impact on the setting of the town. The site has mature trees and hedgerow

boundaries, both of which would need be retained in any future development. A larger site of which

this area is a part is considered in the SHLAA, sites 732 and 733 refer. It is considered that reducing

the SHLAA site to the northern component has reduced the adverse impact on the green corridor to

the south of Highworth identified as a problem in the SHLAA. Access would be taken from Swindon

Road, the A361 which has significant traffic flows. A treatment of the junction that improved traffic

safety for all transport modes may well be required as part of any development.

Left: Aerial View of Redlands Site

11


2.5 Shrivenham Road: 1.7 Ha – current use agricultural

2.5.1 The site is on the outskirts of the town reasonably level but with a gentle slope down to the south,

it is crossed by the 125m contour and is on a level with the more elevated part of the town. It is

approximately 500m from the town centre, and reasonably accessible to services, although Shrivenham

Road does not have a regular bus service on it. A public footpath borders the site to the west.

2.5.2 It is outside of the existing settlement boundary, and projects into open country, although

existing residential development borders the site along some of its boundaries. The site has not

been considered in the SHLAA, but as it is adjacent to Redlands and on the eastern side of that site,

it also has potential problems of visual intrusion into the setting of the town and the surrounding

countryside. Shrivenham Road has no footway adjacent to the site, and has on street parking that

causes traffic congestion nearer to the town centre.

Left: Aerial view of Shrivenham Road site

12


3. Consultation Process 2015

3.1 In July 2015 LB Planning was commissioned to undertake further work on the site selection and

develop a draft Neighbourhood Plan for Highworth. This report details the work undertaken with

the Town Council on site selection by LB Planning.

3.2 The Methodology was to firstly consult on the five short-listed sites and explain why the Town

Council were looking to allocate sites in their Neighbourhood Plan. The sites would also be assessed

on technical merit, but the preferences of local residents would be a factor in the final choice.

3.3 A consultation exercise ran from the 12th September to the 2nd October 2015 and included a

questionnaire both on-line and hard copy (Appendix 1) and a drop in event at the Town Council

Offices in Highworth on Saturday the 12th September. The questionnaire had basic information

about the sites including location plan and photo, size and current use. The same question was

asked of each site:

“Do you think this site is suitable or not for development? Ring the response below that best

describes how you feel:

Very Suitable / suitable / Not sure / not suitable / definitely not”

3.4 The Drop in event ran for three hours on a Saturday morning and was attended by 203 People. It

was generally considered very successful. Developers and/or their agents were present for the

Crane Furlong, Shrivenham, Cemetery and Redlands sites, and happy to answer residents’ queries

and discuss their proposals. Questionnaires were available at the drop in event for people to fill in.

3.5 The questionnaire was returned by 447 people (4 duplicates were removed where people had

replied online and on a hard copy). The responses for each site were as follows:

Figure 2: Responses from Questionnaires for each site.

Where DN = Definitely not; NS = Not Suitable; S = Suitable; VS = Very Suitable

0

50

100

150

200

250

DN NS not sure S VS

Ratings for each Site

Cemetery Crane Furlong Redlands Shrivenham Road Triangle

13


3.6 The responses from the questionnaires were also grouped into either pro-development or

against development of each site, by combining ‘DN’ and ‘NS’ to give the ‘against development’

view, and ‘S’ and ‘VS’ to give the ‘pro-development’ view.

Figure 3: The ‘Pro’ and ‘Anti’ view of development for each site

3.7 Figure 3 showed two sites where a clear majority of respondents were opposed to development.

The Triangle site was felt to be useful open space that should not be developed, its importance for

children’s play having increased with the removal of a nearby grade-separated crossing of St

Michael’s Road that led to further open space. The site would not provide much housing were it to be

developed, and the clear view from residents that it should remain public open space has prevailed.

3.8 The Cemetery Site was objected to (in further comments) on grounds of its impact on the hilltop

setting of Highworth, traffic impact on Cricklade road, the progress of coalescence with Hampton

and that the land should be reserved for extension of the cemetery. The Local Authority also

indicated concerns about the impact of the site on the hilltop setting of Highworth, and that there

were likely to be archaeological features on the site. As it was the second least popular site, and less

that 50% of the community supported its development, it has also been discounted from further

consideration.

14


4. Final Sites Assessment

4.1 The removal of shortlisted sites where a majority of residents were opposed to development

resulted in 3 sites remaining in consideration for housing allocation. The intention of the Town

Council was to allocate at least the housing required in the Local Plan, 112 dwellings. Keeping to this

number or not much more in this plan will leave land available for future expansion, important in a

town constrained by its important visual setting above the Thames Valley.

4.2 Table 2 below shows the criteria used to assess these three sites on their technical merits and

disadvantages. Assessment of flood-risk is not considered as all sites are similarly not in a significant

flood risk location (zone 2 or 3). All have vacant possession and none involve brownfield

development as they are all greenfield development and on land of agricultural grade 3 (information

from Swindon BC, detail on Grade 3A or 3B not available). No significant environmental constraints

are known for any of these three sites besides mature trees and hedgerows, there are no water

courses affected. All sites would need an initial archaeological survey undertaken prior to

development. All of the sites have reasonably level access, the impact of extra traffic generated is

assessed however for each.

4.3 The criteria used to assess the sites were weighted by the Neighbourhood Planning Group as

either high, medium or low importance, and this is also indicated in Table 2. The weighting affects

the scores awarded for each criteria in Table 3, and thus also the final score for each site. The

implications of this assessment are considered further in section 5 of this report.

4.4 Table 3 below shows how each of the sites performed against the criteria in table 2. For each

criteria the site was judged as being either ‘good’, ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ on the grounds indicated in Table 2.

The final score then depended on the weighting given the criteria.

4.5 Scores on the assessment give a general indication of degree of suitability, but it is not wise to

choose sites purely on scores in such a matrix if those scores are mathematically very close. The

maximum score is 108. The site at Shrivenham Road has scored less well at just over half the

maximum obtainable, but Redlands and Crane Furlong are of the same order of magnitude – being

around 70-75% of the maximum score.

Table 2: Criteria used for site assessment

Criteria Factors considered Weighting

1. Community benefit

Opportunities including FP

connections, improved or new

open space and traffic calming.

Significant/Some/Few high

2. Vehicular access does not

create highway and traffic

problems on unsuitable roads.

Distance to distributor road or main road <50m

good; <200m fair; else poor.

high

3. Accessible to town centre on

foot.

Centre of town < 300m = good; 750m = fair; else

poor. Centre of town is Market Square.

high

15


Criteria Factors considered Weighting

4. Visual impact on hilltop town

location.

Visible from surrounding low land = poor; Fitting

into existing urban footprint = good; else fair.

high

5. Mature trees or hedgerows

affected by the development.

TPO/mature trees or hedgerows within site = poor,

trees mainly on boundary = fair, else good.

medium

6. Impact of the site on heritage

and archaeological assets

Listed building and curtilage, archaeological site or

conservation area within 20m of site boundary =

fair; on the boundary or within site = poor. Else

good.

medium

7. Pedestrian access routes/RoW

maintained or improved.

New link can be created =good; existing path to go

or be diverted = poor (unless better, more direct

route can be provided); else fair

medium

8. Housing will suit the character

of the town at the location

New housing can be designed to complement and

fit into existing urban form = good; surrounding

countryside will be adversely visually impacted by

housing development = poor; else fair.

medium

9. Site impact on views out (to

the surrounding countryside).

No impact = good; Minimal impact = fair;

considerable impact = poor.

medium

10. Impact on residential amenity

of neighbours?

More than 10 dwellings within 8m of site = poor;

more than 10 dwellings under 16m from proposed

site = fair; else good.

medium

11. Potential adverse impact on

residential amenity of future

residents

Potential bad neighbours within 16m of the site =

poor; within 30m of the site = fair; else good.

low

12. Proximity of regular bus

services

Bus stop within 200m of site = good; within 400m

= fair; else poor.

low

13. Local Opinion 60%+ in favour = good; >50%=fair; else excluded. high

16


Table 3: Draft Sites Assessment Criteria for Highworth Short-listed sites

Criteria Redlands Crane Furlong Shrivenham Rd

1. Community benefit opportunities

including FP connections, improved or

new open space and traffic calming.

10 10 5

2. Vehicular access does not create

highway and traffic problems on

unsuitable roads.

10 10/5* 0

3. Access to town centre on foot. 5 0 5

4. Visual impact on hilltop town

setting.

10 10 5

5. Mature trees or hedgerows affected

by the development.

0 4 4

6. Impact of the site on heritage and

archaeological assets

8 8 8

7. Pedestrian access routes/RoW

maintained or improved.

8 8 4

8. Housing will suit the character of

the town and extension of settlement

boundary causes minimal visual

intrusion into the countryside.

4 8 0

9. Site impact on views out. 4 8 4

10. Impact on residential neighbours 4 4 8

11. Residential amenity of potential

residents

5 0 5

12. Proximity of regular bus services 5 5 0

13. Local Opinion 10 5 10

Total Score 83 80/75 58

The scores given are 10 good, 5 fair, 0 poor for high priority criteria. For medium criteria the scores

are respectively 8,4,0 and for low priority the scores are 5,2.5,0.

*This score will depend on whether an access can be negotiated directly onto Lechlade Road or not.

17


5. Site Selection and Development Briefs

5.1 The selection matrix shows the site at Shrivenham Road to perform less well in a technical

assessment of attributes. Although the site was popular at the consultation event, the impact on

Highworth’s countryside and the character and setting of Highworth as a hilltop town are serious

disadvantages in planning terms, both for the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan (Policy RA1).

It is also not accepted that a new footpath to the town centre would be created, although the

existing path could be maintained and given a better surface. The developers may have been

referring to the provision of a ‘footway’ along Shrivenham Road as part of the proposed scheme, this

would be required on grounds of highway safety, and is not considered a community benefit, as it

would be required by the development and mostly serve only residents on that development.

5.2 The other two sites are considered the best locations for new housing, and there is merit in

allocating some housing to each end of the town. The Crane Furlong site needs to adequately buffer

the potential threats to residential amenity from the industrial uses and sewage works to the north.

With this site able to provide around 42 dwellings, the Redlands site would need to provide a

minimum of 70 dwellings. This development could be provided on the larger western portion of this

site, despite the constraint of needing to protect and retain the existing trees and hedgerows. The

more visually sensitive area of the consultation site on the higher ground of the eastern field is not

proposed to be allocated in the Plan, although a link to the existing footpath will be required.

5.3 This proposed allocation minimises the potential adverse effects of each site, while offering

significant community benefit to both the north and south of the town. Outline development briefs

are offered for the Crane Furlong and Redlands site below, setting out the requirements for a

successful planning application for residential development. These are also appendices to the draft

Neighbourhood Plan.

18


5.4 Development Brief for Crane Furlong Site

19


1. Site Description

1.1 The site slopes very gently to the north and is located on low-lying land (90 – 85m contours) to

the north of the town, adjacent to the Industrial estate and sewage works. Its current use is low

level grazing agriculture, and it is 2.32ha in size. It is located between residential development to

the south and the Industrial Estate to the north, and the unadopted Pentylands Lane and Crane

Furlong both currently offer access to the site.

2. Planning Context

2.1 The site is outside the settlement boundary carried over into the Swindon Local Plan 2026 (SLP)

from the previous Swindon Local Plan. Allocations outside this boundary in Neighbourhood Plans

are acceptable within the terms of Policy SD2 c) of the SLP, and the Highworth Neighbourhood Plan

(HNP) will revise the settlement boundary in line with allocations made. The site has been assessed

in the SHLAA; sites 731 and 1135 refer, and assessed in this document as deliverable in 0-5 years.

Development will be required to comply with planning policy in the HNP and the overall

Development Plan. Particular attention is drawn to policies DE1, DE2 and EN7 in the SLP.

3. Site Constraints

3.1 There are no significant flood risks associated with the site, although adjacent development is

reported to have dealt with small springs and ground water.

3.2 Environmental have indicated initial concerns about the proximity of the site to the sewage

works and industrial area; odours from the former and noise nuisance from the latter are possible

issues. The developer will be required to use part of the site for mitigation purposes, as discussed

below.

3.3 The land to the east of the site is owned by Highworth Town Council on a lease from Swindon

Borough Council and is used for recreational purposes. The land was originally be available for a

new access to the site from Lechlade road. The Town Council have since decided however not to

release their land, and so this potential access has not been considered in this brief.

20


4. Site Requirements

4.1 The development will not be required to provide an area of open space, but will be required to

contribute to the improvement of the adjacent area of open space. Improvements to include the

provision of a MUGA/skatepark, seating areas, planting and drainage works where required. CIL

receipts for the Town Council are likely to be spent on Town Centre improvements.

4.2 Environmental Health concerns about the proximity mean that a buffer zone with mitigation

measures as recommended by Swindon BC will be required on that part of the site adjacent to the

Industrial Estate and Sewage Works. They have advised that

“we would expect to see some form of odour evaluation and assessment [of] the soundscape in

the area that demonstrates what impact we might expect to see on the amenity of residents of

the proposed development … [and what would] be possible in terms of ….. mitigation.”

4.3 If the option of taking access to Lechlade Road is offered through the recreational site adjacent,

then that is the preferred access route. This would require new open space and improvements to be

provided as compensation. Should this not be possible then either or both of the access points

shown can be used. The access onto Pentylands Lane is required to encourage turn left only

movements, and will need to suit any new access constructed as part of the development to the

west of the site (Planning permissions S/11/0280 and S/RES/12/0640 refer).

4.4 The Housing Mix required on the site is 42 dwellings, of which the affordable housing

component of 13 dwellings (30%) is required to include shared ownership dwellings and some

starter homes as defined in the Housing and Planning Bill/Act 2016.

4.5 Design of housing is to comply with policy 17 in the HNP and other requirements of the

Development Plan. A privacy strip is required as shown to dwellings on Crane Furlong and the

development should be no higher than 2 storeys. Main external elevational treatments to be brick

in keeping with rest of the town. Any development will also need to comply with the design

requirements of policy DE1 of the Swindon Local Plan Part 1.

5. Further Information

SBC Planning Department is the local planning authority that will deal with the planning application.

Highworth town Council will be happy to provide further local information. Contact Details as

follows:

Swindon Borough Council: E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01793 445500

Highworth Town Council: http://www.highworthtowncouncil.gov.uk/contact.asp Tel: 01793 762377

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.highworthtowncouncil.gov.uk/contact.asp

21


5.5 Draft Development Brief for Redlands Site

1. Site Description

1.1 This site is outside of the current settlement boundary, but adjacent to it, located to the south

of the town centre, at approximately 500m distance. The current use is for agricultural grazing, and

it is 4.3 ha in size. There are residential properties to the north of the site, Redlands House and

outbuildings are to the south. The main A361 road to Swindon is the western boundary of the site,

to the east to site rises to form open fields. It slopes gently down to the south and west, and is

120m above RD at its lowest point making it low-lying relative to the town centre.

1.2 The eastern side of the site has been identified in the SHLAA as being visually more intrusive in

its impact on the setting of the town. For this reason the site allocated for housing has slightly

reduced in size the original site consulted on, and discounted for the life of this plan development on

the eastern section of the site.

1.3 The site has mature trees and hedgerow boundaries, all of which would need be retained in any

future development.

22


2. Planning Context

2.1 The site is outside the settlement boundary carried over into the Local Plan from the previous

Swindon Local Plan. Allocations outside this boundary in Neighbourhood Plans are acceptable within

the terms of Policy SD2 c) of the Swindon Local Plan 2016 (SLP), and the Highworth Neighbourhood

Plan (HNP) will revise the settlement boundary in line with allocations made. A larger site, of which

this area is a part, is considered in the SHLAA, sites 732 and 733 refer. It is considered that reducing

the SHLAA site to the northern component has reduced the adverse impact on the green corridor to

the south of Highworth identified as a problem in the SHLAA. Development will be required to

comply with planning policy in the HNP and the overall Development Plan. Particular attention is

drawn to policies DE1, DE2 and EN1 in the SLP.

3. Site Constraints

3.1 There are no significant flood risks associated with the site.

3.2 The site has a stand of mature trees within it, several mature trees on the boundaries and trees

standing alone within the site. The site layout is required to retain these trees and the hedgerows

on site, and integrate them well into the public circulation spaces where possible. A green corridor

should flow into and through the site, linking these existing ecological assets.

4. Site Requirements

4.1.1 There is an existing Public Footpath (FP10) and link to the countryside to the North east of the

site, and access to this path should be made in any layout. There is a further possible connection to

a potential path that should also be possible if the legal situation with it can be established. A link

between the existing footpath FP16A Starting on the west side of the A361 adjacent to the site and

path FP10 Should be facilitated within the layout (footway acceptable), and safe pedestrian crossing

facilities provided to link the site to FP16A And the recreation ground.

23


4.1.2The A361 is a potential cycle route to Swindon, and measures that improve the situation for

cycling along this road will be required as part of the development. In particular, making a safe

route for pedestrians and cyclists between the site and the junction of FP11 with the A361 will

improve connectivity on the rights of way network and promote active and sustainable travel.

4.2 Access will be taken from Swindon Road, the A361, which has significant traffic flows. A

treatment of the junction that improved traffic safety for all transport modes will be required as part

of any development. A mini roundabout with pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities is the preferred

option.

4.3 Public Open Space is not required to be allocated within the site, but an alternative contribution

to improvements to the recreation ground will be required.

4.4 A contribution to Town Centre environmental improvements will be required from the

development.

4.5 The site is required to provide 70 dwellings, of which 24 should be affordable, with a minimum

of 18 affordable homes to be rented. A minimum of three plots for self or custom build should be

offered for sale for a minimum of three months at a reasonable price, to revert to market housing if

there is no effective interest. The site is considered suitable for a maximum of 12 executive houses,

as promoted by policy HA1 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan Part1 and suggested by the mature

woodland on site and need to build to lower densities on parts of it. Other housing should be

provided in line with existing demand for market housing within Highworth.

4.6 The development should respect the site location on the edge of the settlement, and maintain a

‘soft edge’ with screening landscaping (sometimes retained) and native tree planting to boundaries

with the open countryside. Development should be no more than 2 storeys high and main external

elevational treatments to be brick in keeping with rest of the town. Any development will need to

comply with the design requirements of policy DE1 of the SLP and Policy 17 of the HNP.

5. Further Information

SBC Planning Department is the local planning authority that will deal with the planning application.

Highworth town Council will be happy to provide further local information. Contact Details as

follows:

Swindon Borough Council: E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01793 445500

Highworth Town Council: http://www.highworthtowncouncil.gov.uk/contact.asp Tel: 01793 762377

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.highworthtowncouncil.gov.uk/contact.asp

site appraisal and selection highworth neighbourhood plan

Documents