The Site for Bourton’s New Village Hall

Briefing Paper

October 2018

1

Contents Page

1. Introduction 3

2. The Two Sites 4 - 8

3. Site Comparison 8 - 14

4. Consultation summary 14 - 15

Appendix A: Consultation comments 16 - 31

Appendix B: Extract from Neighbourhood Plan: Policy 5: New Village Hall 32 - 33

2

1. Introduction

The existing Village Hall was completed in the 1970’s on land owned by the Diocese of Salisbury. It is a simple steel-framed building clad with asbestos cement sheet and wood. The shortcomings of this building for a community that is increasing in size by approximately 15% based on existing and envisaged new house building, include:

Poor access for the elderly and less able Limited car parking and no useable outside space Very limited toilet, kitchen and storage facilities Space limited to stage, hall and small “committee room” High cost of heating, de-humidifying and lighting

There is also a threat of significant future expenditure on the structure, roof, insulation and reinforcement of the bank on which the hall stands if it is not replaced. However, whatever the action that might be taken to modernise it, the village would be left with an unappealing and inadequate building that would be likely to continue to offer only a limited resource to the community.

Building a new hall on the existing site would not overcome all of these shortcomings due to the limitations of space and the presence of the steep bank. A new hall on the existing site would not significantly reduce the funding required for the project since the land for a new site is being given freely and services also provided to the site.

In support of the strategy for a New Village Hall on a new site, it may be noted that:

• In 2013 89.6% of respondents indicated that a village hall was important.

• In 2014 the village voted 388 for, 52 against, 34 don’t know for a New Village Hall enabled by a small housing development.

• In January 2018, 39% of the village voted with a majority of 93% in favour of the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan which includes this same approach for a New Village Hall under Policy 5 (restated at Annex B) and which identifies two, wholly acceptable sites. These two sites are outside but immediately next to the village’s Settlement Boundary.

3

The purpose of this paper is to provide an open brief to councillors on the merits and shortcomings of each site and on the community’s views and preferences. A separate paper provides a summary of the likely impact of each site on plans for the New Village Hall itself.

This paper also serves to set out the results of the process that the village has been through to arrive at this opportunity to choose between the two sites. This process has been open, lengthy and managed objectively. It has included questionnaires and analyses conducted by the Neighbourhood Plan Group, appraisals by external professionals and examiners in the lead up to the finalisation of the Neighbourhood Plan and then open meetings, monthly reports, consultations, a workshop and public discussion, latterly supported by a Lottery grant.

2. The Two Sites

2.1 “Sandways”

There have been a number of proposals to develop the land to the west and south of Sandways Farm, noting that the farm and its major land-holding were separated a generation ago. The most significant application (subsequently withdrawn) was in 1998 for the construction of 20 houses.

Following a review by the then Village Hall Management Committee of possible sites for a new hall, the owners and their agent, Brimble Lea, were contacted to see if they would accept a scheme for the donation of land for a new hall in return for a small enabling development of houses.

There was a positive response to this but following the passage of the Localism Act into law in 2011, the Parish Council determined that any such scheme should be part of an overall Neighbourhood Plan (NP). The Sandways site therefore came under the scrutiny of the NP process, emerging as one of three shortlisted sites and then one of the two, equally rated sites presently under consideration.

In 2016, on behalf of their client, Brimble Lea submitted a request for outline planning permission on the basis of the scheme under assessment by the NP:

4

The Parish Council lodged an objection to this application on the grounds that it was premature since the NP was still being formulated and was unapproved. A second, repeat application (August 2017 and resubmitted on 28th September 2018) has yet to be decided by NDDC although as part of this process, discussions with NDDC and communications with representatives of the Parish Council have resulted in the scheme being modified for the September resubmission.

Two major changes have taken place as shown on the layout below: the location of the hall has moved further from the road and one part of the housing development has moved northwards to lie alongside the road thus leaving a space between the whole development and the heritage assets of Sandways Farm:

5

It is understood that the footprint of the hall shown on the most recent proposal is taken from the new Harman’s Cross (Purbeck) hall as the basis for a less visually intrusive hall development on this site. Brimble Lea has made it clear that the size and detailed design for the new hall is a matter for further discussion. It may be assumed, however, that there has been a push to show a visually and environmentally reduced-impact building by setting it at the bottom of the slope on this site backing on to the existing ditch and hedging. The plans do not explicitly show this periodic watercourse and associated hedging along the length of the division between the two fields being donated to the Parish under this scheme.

The land is not currently being farmed actively although it has been grazed periodically in previous years. The site contains two current eyesores, an asbestos clad barn and the steel skeleton of a barn that burned down some years ago.

6

2.2 “Jubilee Field”

The SC Hannam Trust, a trust formed to manage very long-standing local family interests, responded to the NP call to landowners for candidate sites for a new village hall. The land is to the west of the properties on Church Track and lies between them and Chaffeymoor Farm, a grade II listed building. The site is bounded to the north by New Road and to the south by a smaller field and then the A303 cutting.

The Trust drew up a simple outline scheme in consultation with the NPG. This went forward for consideration under the short-listing process:

Following discussions with NDDC, representatives of the Parish Council and now with the involvement of a local architect (Steven Whitham of Stourpaine), the scheme has developed into that which is now presented.

There is no fundamental change but the scheme has evolved in terms of its detail, in particular the housing development (9 including 2 four

7

bedroom houses from 5-7 2/3 bedroom houses) and the planting to minimise the impact of the buildings. The Jubilee scheme has used the

hall footprint developed by the Village Hall team which does reflect the full range of facilities and activities indicated by community questionnaire and confirmed by the sequence of consultative “gatherings” funded by the Lottery.

3. Site Comparison.

3.1 Original Comparison:

In the down-select process, the following comparison was provided for the original proposals, resulting in the exclusion of Voscombe Farm and a near tie of weighted scores as between Sandways and Jubilee Field.

There would not seem to be a significant move in the scores justified by the most recent proposals with the exception that the score for

8

Sandways against visual impact criteria would improve by 8 to 10 points under the most recent proposals, making the scoring all but level.

9

10

The summary comparison based on the original proposals/lay-outs was presented in this late 2015 slide. It holds true with the exception of the nature of the housing proposed in each case.

3.2 Revised proposal comparison

Building on the professional appraisal from the Neighbourhood Plan, public input through the consultation events and project observations, the summaries that follow may be drawn up. It should be noted that:

• Neither site is offering so-called Affordable Housing. Under nation-wide regulations, where housing developments consist of ten or fewer dwellings, there is no requirement to offer Affordable Housing.

• There are two different processes facing the Parish Council. The Local Planning Authority LPA) – presently North Dorset District Council - is looking, per the Neighbourhood Plan, to the Parish Council to express its preference of site for a new hall. The Parish Council will then also appraise planning applications from either scheme, as required, as a statutory consultee.

• The developers of either site, once selected, will be required to reach formal and binding agreement with the LPA on a S.106 arrangement. It should not be assumed that the donation of land

11

for the village hall and amenity land for the community will comprise the totality of the S106 agreement.

Jubilee Field Site

• 9 homes: 2x4 bedroom, 4x3 bedroom, 2x2 bedroom

• New houses are a single, coherent new development

• The combined housing and hall development extends the village as a “ribbon” and is over a mile from the far end of the village

• Good potential for synergy between new Hall and Church and School for events and parking, especially if a new pedestrian link can be established.

• The visual impact is more pronounced on distant views looking towards the village and the up-slope behind than on the immediate approach into the village.

• The whole site is subject to significant traffic noise from the A303

• Fewer than 10 neighbours impacted (excluding new houses)

• Less overall disturbance to the village during construction

• Some road safety measures may be required due to the proximity of the brow of the hill on New Road (potentially of wider public benefit).

• The location and orientation of new Hall next to amenity land is likely to be attractive for events/external hirings, especially since distant (outward) views likely to be a feature of the new Hall, and with lower impact on neighbours

• The new Hall should have good ‘kerb appeal’ which should increase potential for hirings for events, potentially also helping the Church to increase its attraction as a venue.

• Amenity land is well suited to future exploitation for sport & recreation, albeit requiring some engineering to mitigate the gradient.

• Amenity land is less well suited to an environmental project

12

Sandways Site

• 9 homes: 5x3 bedroom, 4x2/3 bedrooms

• New houses are in two “infill” areas in keeping with other developments in the immediate area

• More closely located to the centre of the village and the main existing concentrations of housing and population

• Central location should encourage less car use and lower carbon footprint

• Hall location away from the road should minimise disturbance to neighbours but may impact its attractiveness as a venue

• Access for the elderly and less able may still be a problem due to the gradient from the road to the Hall

• The combined housing/hall development would reduce the rural aspect of the centre of the village

• Some visual impact on important views but also beneficial removal of existing eyesores

• More than 20 neighbours impacted (excluding new housing) visually and environmentally

• Very narrow access to the separate element of the new housing on the lane beside Fernleigh and Acacia Cottage

• May require some road safety measures to be considered, such as an island (potentially of wider public benefit).

• Closeness/number of neighbours may restrict the licensing of the Hall for evening & outside events

• Synergy between new Hall and amenity land is less immediate due to the ditch and substantial hedging

13

• Amenity land is larger and well suited to an environmental/nature conservation/wildlife project and connects to well-used bridle & footpaths (Clay Lane and Stour Valley Way)

4. Consultation

4.1. Consultation Activity and Outcome

The 3 consultation events (15th September workshop and debate, 29th September workshop) drew an overall attendance of 133.

83 comparison sheets and 45 written comments have been received.

The balance of the comparison sheets is approximately 60% in favour of Sandways and 40% in favour of Jubilee. The comments are attached at annex A. They also dominantly favour Sandways.

A separately organised list of 200 names has been received. This was produced by private individuals who feel their outlook and properties will be impacted by a development on the Jubilee Field and contains a balance of 98.5% in favour of the Sandways Farm site.

The following points should be noted:

There was (unauthorised) organised and continuous presence at the workshop table where villagers were asked to fill in their comparison and comment sheets by a small number of individuals including some of the same people that organised the straw poll. Verbal comments made to the organisers suggested that this presence was felt to be somewhat intimidating.

If the 18% of comparison sheets that have evidently been completed in what might be described as a “just tick all the boxes” manner are excluded from the result, the more considered balance becomes 54% Sandways, 46% Jubilee Field.

A copy of the list of names has been made available to the project team. Whilst it does also reflect a majority in favour of the Sandways site, a number of factors significantly reduce its credibility and importance:

- Two complaints were received by the Parish Council about the manner of the conduct of the poll.

14

- Other anecdotal evidence suggests that many people did not wish to sign their names

- The list does not seem to include many of the householders affected by a development at Sandways.

- The list contains duplicate names- The list contains some names without signatures

4.2. Consultation Comments

All of the written comments made are attached at appendix A.

The dominant theme in the written and verbal comments received is:

A new Hall should be in the centre of the village (i.e. on the Sandways site)

Other significant themes are

Hall, Church and School have the opportunity to work more closely together if the Hall is on the Jubilee Field

The Jubilee Field proposal is the more attractive and would affect fewer people

Concern at the location of the accesses to the main road on both sites.

A number of other points have been made that are noteworthy:

As both developments are on agricultural land, it should not have been necessary to offer the enabling developments (subject of a letter in the Blackmore Vale magazine).

The village needs more affordable housing not new houses in the price bracket offered in both proposals.

Visual impact assessments should be realistic and take into account the untidiness/uncared for surrounds affecting both sites as well as the presence of the A303.

The existing hall should have its lease re-negotiated, the slope re-engineered, the hall rebuilt and a car park provided where the old, redundant barn is on the opposite side of New Road.

15

Appendix A

NEW VILLAGE HALL SITE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP

Comment Forms

Why building further new houses when we have 2 developments that haven’t sold hardly any of the houses they have built. Surely some of

16

the houses on the proposed new hall [site] should be affordable!

Speed of vehicles leaving the village, they [unreadable] the brow of the hill and get up speed. This will cause an accident.

You will encourage people to drive to Jubilee site as it’s on edge of the village this then surely defeats the point.

---

The main reason for a village [hall] is to be available to local people and as such it should be in the centre of the village which means Sandways as against the Jubilee site.

---

There are too many safety and noise concerns regarding Jubilee Park site.

In terms of being able to make the best use of the village hall at all times and all years I believe Sandways to be the best choice for the new hall.

Sandways also provides the best possible layout and usage of the available land.

If the aim is to provide for the village and its future and make an accessible, useable and viable village hall, the choice must be Sandways.

---

I have lived in the village for 63 years and I think the new village hall site should be in the centre of the village and NOT at the Jubilee site. It’s too dangerous for cars that are coming into the village, it’s right on the brow of the hill.

--- Many factors impact if Jubilee site is chosen: traffic, walking distance

from centre of the village, impact on wildlife, impact on view over the Blackmore Vale, danger of over-development of our wonderful village, impact on ‘yes’ the only house but please look sympathetically at our

17

situation. We would love a play park and conservation area – not houses and a “huge” village hall.

---

Must be built in the centre of the village! ---

No-one will want to walk that far (to Jubilee fields). ---

It will be far too expensive for village events. ---

The impact on several houses in the area will be extensive. ---

Nothing will make me change my mind. [for Sandways] ---

There is no proof that the village hall will be built – the houses will be! ---

This is not what the village wants!

---

I prefer Sandways as it is more central.

---

Would prefer the Sandways site as nearer the centre of village as opposed to Jubilee site which is out on a limb on outskirts of Bourton. Also proposed housing seems to be more low cost types which hopefully would attract a younger buyer.

If Jubilee site used more people likely to travel by car rather than walk – not to be encouraged??

---

Houses should not be offered for sale prior to developer’s obligations regarding the hall be[ing] completed.

The houses on the Sandways site are being built on land already being used for development, therefore much better/appropriate than building a Greenfield site. The Sandways land looks as though it is not being used so better for building than Jubilee which is used for farming. Jubilee is outside the village plan, recently agreed.

---

18

Sandways is a far better site. More safe for road access and noise. More room to develop play areas.

---

Developers seem to have too much control over siting of housing. It appears that the housing is becoming more important than the village hall itself. We should be [unreadable] that the housing cannot go ahead without a village hall being built.

---

A very difficult decision – both locations have their plus points – however on the face of it I feel Jubilee is probably the best choice, partly because it will be closer to the church and school. If Jubilee is chosen I would wish to be reassured that this would not be carte blanche to developers to expand the village further.

---

As a resident living at the Zeals end of Bourton, my preference is for the Sandways site. The Sandways site is in the centre of the community and I believe would help to bring the community together. If the Jubilee site were chosen, we would not walk to the hall as it is too far. I feel that others living at the east end of Bourton feel the same, and this could have an impact on the future potential of fund-raising – perhaps leading to reduced income. I also fear about the safety of the Jubilee site. With the blind spot on the brow of the hill, there is great potential for accidents to occur with traffic turning into the site. Speeding is already a problem in the village and I strongly believe that the Sandways site is far safer. Please make the right choice!!!

---

Very difficult decision to make. However, considering all the options, I think it would be better to go for the Jubilee site as [the] various entertainment[s] that the village hall might have would not have such an impact on surrounding houses. I also believe that the proximity of the school and the church would be a definite advantage. I am assuming that the Highways Department would consider a crossing there if it is deemed to be necessary.

19

---

Difficult decision regarding site. Sandways is more central to village with potential additional parking on road. However it involves more properties, and a “tucked away” hall so difficult to find for strangers to village. Jubilee is off centre of village, but quantity of housing is less. However, potential additional parking on road would be impossible due to peak of hill and danger from oncoming traffic. Crossing road for pedestrians would be difficult unless a controlled crossing could be placed safely.

---

The village hall should be for the village – if we can’t make it “work” in the middle (Sandways) of the village, should we [be] doing this at all?

In this age of increasing ecological awareness, and hopefully sensible implementation, the shortest distance for all inhabitants to walk to the hall is the middle of the village [and this] is the only reasonable choice. The hall will never have a chance to unify this village at Jubilee site. Most of the questions are irrelevant (sorry) much more important was a proper representation of the respective sites in relation to the [unreadable] village. Progress brings change [unreadable and numbers] Bike rack? ---

Why has NDDC changed its mind about visibility of hall – partisan pressure? ---

Does the housing go up before the hall or after – [unreadable] noise?

In terms of noise problems it used to be ok to “make a noise” up to a certain time, depending on the day of the week and a licence required to longer/later… Get a life – it’s not going to be every day.

---

If all things are equal, then there is no doubt that a village hall in the centre of the community would be preferable to one on the outskirts. One of the key factors will surely be the amount of cash to build the hall offered by each developer. In addition the type of development will be important. While I am sure both are honest: developers do not have a good history of developing what they initially propose!

20

---

SANDWAYS is the one, it’s obvious. Pretty much the whole village would say the same.

---

For me the clinching argument concerns the quality of the housing development. The development at Jubilee scores very positively; that at Sandways seems to be just “more housing”.

---

I think the village hall should be in the centre of the village – it’s all very well to create a community “hub” by the church/school but not everyone uses these, and there are a lot of houses east of the Sandways site.

Drink-driving – drink sales add a lot to the village hall funds and a 40-minute walk to the village hall is too long on a winter night.

Carbon-emissions – will more people have to drive to Jubilee Hall?

The school already has a hall which is available for hire. Do we need another hall that close?

---

I object to the implication that all social centres (church, school, village hall) should be together, ie which the Jubilee site would exaggerate even more.

Apart from pub and garage* (*hardly a social centre), [word missing] are at the bottom of the village.

The centre of the village, accessible and equidistant between Zeal end inhabitants and Chaffeymoor, would be much fairer.

I’m sure more parking spaces could be created at the Sandways site.---

Both sites are less than perfect of course! The proximity of the church and school to the Jubilee site could well enhance future usage and there is room for many more parking spaces – useful for wedding and

21

funeral parties. Only one existing house would be seriously affected by the Jubilee site but more would be affected at the Sandways one. However, the latter is far more central in the village and fewer houses are required. It is a difficult decision but, by and large, Jubilee is my choice.

---

How do the build and running costs compare? Will this affect the choice of the site – are they roughly equal?

---

The houses proposed for New Road Sandways site (roadside) are likely to impact hugely on the flow of traffic during construction. Having witnessed the effect, on a daily basis, of at least nine vehicles parked roadside during the construction of Kiama(2) I would not welcome builders’ vehicles parked in the road for approximately 2 years whilst the Hall and houses were built. Whilst not opposed to the Sandways site, I think overall the Jubilee site would be of more use for the school children and draw in the outer limit of the village community. It would be of great benefit for the school to be able to use the new Hall and environs. Easy access is paramount and the Jubilee site offers that providing the entry to the Hall and new houses is well-planned and not too close to the brow of the hill.

---

The access into Jubilee site close to brow of hill in fast part of road. Sandways site in centre of village.

---

I am impressed with how the developer on Sandways site has addressed some of the more difficult, contentious issues. It looks neat and tidy on paper.

---

To my mind, a key factor in the decision making between the two sites must be the comparative business cases. If the new hall is expected to generate huge amounts of revenue then its range of activities must be larger. This would mean a number of activities which could affect the quiet enjoyment of properties near the new hall. As one site is more central, with more neighbours (Sandways)

22

then this may affect income-earning potential.

Whilst the rearrangement of the Sandways scheme layout is a clear improvement, the question of what will happen to the area where the new hall was previously located on [the] plan is in doubt. If retained by the developer, then there could be future housing development. This area should be part of the donated land to the PC to ensure that it remains open space.

---

Because the village structure is linear, I favour the Sandways site as being central means the hall is more easily accessible from both ends of the village. I consider access safer than at the Jubilee site which is on the hill with less visibility of oncoming traffic.

Question: How much affordable housing on each site? None, as far as I know, on the Bourton Mill site, so much needed in the village.

---

The Jubilee site provides a great opportunity for the school and church to utilise the amenity space at the site which is much needed as the school playing-field is not usable in the winter.

I am concerned about traffic that will be brought into the village if the Sandways site is approved. The road is already too busy and fast and to allow more vehicles into the village to visit the hall will be hugely detrimental to the village and cause safety concerns.

The Sandways site is too close to many residents and will have a big impact on people’s lives, particularly when large events are being held.

---

It is not clear from the Sandways plans if the parcel of land next to Sandways farm is being given or retained – this is important and needs to be clarified with the owner.

The Sandways site will impact the setting of the listed building at Sandways farm. This will impact what will be approved and how the Hall can be used.

23

---

I believe that the Jubilee site will provide better amenity for both the church and the primary school. The primary school playing-field is not usable in the winter, or throughout most of the spring [and so] it would be a huge benefit to Bourton’s primary school.

The Sandways site would increase traffic through the centre of the village and is likely to result in parking on the road when large events are held.

The Sandways site is in a much more densely populated part of the village and, if events are held there, it is likely to lead to consistent complaints from neighbouring properties.

The Sandways site may still have a detrimental heritage impact on Sandways farm and may have implications on the limits for design of the village hall and car park.

---

Sandways is more central. Village hall should be central to village. Impact on village and countryside views can be altered, ie different styles of housing, hedging, trees etc. Both sites will have impact on neighbours. Biodiversity and wildlife can be altered to suit on both sites. Trees, hedges, watercourses can be brought in, taken away or removed to suit. Wildlife area can be created “anywhere”.

---

The village hall will be the hub of the community and needs to be as close to the centre of the village as possible. The Jubilee site is a lovely productive field with fantastic views to destroy – this would be terrible. The Sandways site is a mess and to smarten it up with a new hall would improve the existing area. Also I thought that the Council to infill concerning development and Sandways would fit in with that. Sandways site please.

---

The village hall should be located in the middle of the village at Sandways. Building it at Jubilee will spoil good, free-draining farmland which would be wrong. Building at Sandways would be infilling and

24

would make more sense. Also it would tidy up a rough part of the village.

---

Having farmed for many years, the access at Jubilee field is quite poor; at many times we have trouble with visibility on pulling out of the field. Sandways is central to the village, with access for the school at an equal to Jubilee Field.

---

Sandways site is central to village and will be built on in future so build village hall here. Farm opposite Jubilee site not able to tidy old buildings as outside village boundary, so how can building village hall and houses opposite be right?

---

The Sandways site is much nearer the centre of the village and has a larger wildlife area.

The Jubilee access is close to the top of the hill with poor forward visibility.

37 car parking spaces is too few, and no room for more.

Parking on the road not a good idea at this location. More room for parking at Sandways site.

Jubilee site nearer the school – but the school has its own hall.

---

I favour Jubilee – by siting at the end of the village this reduces noise pollution when the hall is being used for evening [event]s. The Sandways location is difficult to pull out of as the road bends and is on a hill. Traffic passing does so at speed and will be dangerous to pull out of this location. Any extra traffic that needs to park as an overflow would be best parked at the end of the village (Jubilee site) as the road is straighter and there is less chance of an accident.

---

25

I am concerned about parking for Jubilee site, being so close to the brow of the hill. It has proven so difficult to get a lower speed limit! Already school parking near the brow of the hill is often dangerous. Parking is paramount and needs to accommodate all eventualities.

---

From a commercial perspective – Jubilee site is a better option.

If a footpath could be made from J[ubilee] to Church Track, that would help school and church parking.

---

I feel that the Jubilee site affords a chance to link Church and School.

The impact on traffic will be less at the Jubilee site.

It [Jubilee] is likely to have less impact in terms of noise nuisance.

---

• I hope the new houses will include some eco or environmental houses in the mix – the community houses down Common Lane provide interesting points.

---

•Sandways - Bringing the housing up to the pavement adjacent to the road complies with the Village Design Scheme and the Neighbourhood Plan both of which require existing building lines to be respected. However the new housing is likely to appear exceptionally obtrusive given that its nearest neighbour, Flax Cottage, is a small house whose foundations are between one and two metres below the level of the pavement.

• [Sandways - ]Moving the VH to the bottom of the field will leave open space adjacent to the road which I believe has always been one of the planning objectives. However it will considerably reduce the outlook from the back of the hall which I understand is intended to be a social area for outside entertaining. That social area is also physically limited by the ditch which flows across the field at that point and which will, following periods of heavy rain, represent a serious health and safety risk. Steps will need to be taken to physically prevent parking on the

26

grass area on those occasions when the 24 spaces of hard parking are full. Consideration might also need to be given to procedures for preventing incursion by travellers. People parking on the road will have a steep walk back to their car (approx. 7m level change, twice that between the road and the current VH).

• [Sandways - ]The field between the road and the hall is likely to be attractive to mothers with small children and also to dog walkers. This is not a happy combination and some form of control will be required.

• [Sandways - ]The temptation to tarmac a part of the field in order to provide more parking must be resisted as it would detract from the (already diminished) view.

•Jubilee Field - Because of the nature of the development the housing is some distance back from the pavement and this leaves space for planting and results in a much less obtrusive layout.

• [Jubilee Field -]Because half of the field will remain undeveloped there is no need to open a “window” between the buildings to create a view.

• [Jubilee Field - ]The hall is sited fairly close to the road and at the rear has a very fine view and a large amount of social space.

• [Jubilee Field - ]More parking space has been foreseen (44 spaces) which will reduce the temptation for people to park “illegally”. although thought should be given to measures which would prevent that.

• [Jubilee -]Because of the development layout the risk of incursion by travellers is much reduced.

• [Jubilee -]If thought necessary additional parking could be provided along the eastern boundary of the field, south of the hall, without unduly disturbing the view.

•Adoption of the Jubilee Field site would leave the Sandways site frontage open thus helping to maintain the rural aspect of the village which is a characteristic much valued by the residents.

•All in all I am strongly in favour of the Jubilee Field site.

--- 

27

• I have several comments to make. However, overall, I strongly favour the Sandways Site because of those factors inherent in the sites themselves that cannot easily be changed.

• I do not think the tick box form provided will provide any valid answers on account of the fact that members of the public were asked to chose between alternatives that are not fixed but in some cases very fluid. I will provide one example, but there will clearly be others. Site Parking. When the matter of parking was brought up, and the clear difference in numbers between the two sites (40 as opposed to 20) was highlighted, we were informed that this could change. Even so, the tick box sheet asked members of the parish to choose which site they prefer based on parking. How can such a choice be valid? How many other matters are similarly fluid? Where they are similarly liable to change, how can it be possible to make the choice, except based on those matters that are actually fixed, such as the locations themselves and their surroundings?

 

• I am similarly concerned about other unexplained details that could affect the choice, such as site drainage possibilities. Although they may not affect any proposed nature area, this could have dramatic consequences for any playing field type of area which would need to be both level and adequately drained.

---

•Sight and Sound intrusion for hall users who wish to use a surrounding outside space for such activities as a Bar B Q or sitting on benches to admire the surroundings. In this respect the Sandways site is far superior because of the lower noise levels from the A303 and less visual intrusion from it.

--- 

•Distance from church and school. I do not feel this is a significant issue. Either site is a short walk from both school and church. On the other hand, a more central location is generally more convenient to the whole village.

•Overflow parking could become a serious issue. Access to the Jubilee site from a footpath in West Bourton Road would doubtless increase

28

parking in that road, both during the day and in the evening, impinging on what is already an over-parked area. On the other hand, a footpath access to the Sandways site from Clay Lane would have a positive recreational impact.

--- 

•Noise management of those groups using either hall will need to be managed by carefully considered rules, and sanctions applied to those who fail to follow the rules. But this should be easily possible provided the halls themselves have a good level of acoustic insulation.

---

•We feel that the most suitable site for the new Hall is the land opposite the current location and the proceeds from Development should be used to fund the new building. This site is more central for the whole community and will improve a neglected area. Bourton must be allowed to grow and flourish for the present and future population.

---

•The positioning issue – Sandways is more central for people to walk to, although the Jubilee site is only a 5 minute walk away [from me]. However, being more central gives greater potential for more noise pollution and traffic issues to considerably more residents. Jubilee on the outskirts will affect considerably less residents and be more environmentally friendly.

• It is a big plus for the Jubilee site that it offers the potential for quick and easy access from the hall to the church and school.

•Both sites offer good access, parking spaces etc for the hall itself, although Sandways amenity land is very wet at times, not well drained and with restricted vehicular access.

---

•The major issues, I feel, relate to housing options. The Jubilee housing layout is considerably better than the Sandways option. The Jubilee layout has taken into account the needs of the village and the environment and has been designed very sympathetically.

29

•The Sandways housing option is split in[to] to separate developments, not linked and totally engulfing the current residents. The 3 separate houses use a small lane with restricted access, are on an extremely wet, not easy to drain site [and] they also, by their positioning, block in and congest the access to the four existing properties.

---• I am writing to you as a long resident of Bourton & as a parent of

St George’s school with regards to the siting of the new village hall. As a long standing parent of the school I deeply feel that the obvious choice for both the school & the church would be the jubilee site. This is easily accessible from the school & church enabling it to be used by both. The school playing field as it stands is unusable through the winter months as it become water logged. Having the new site just a short walk through the church gate & up a little would be extremely beneficial.

• This site also makes complete sense when hiring to ‘outside’ users, those coming from out of the village can use the A303 or come in from anywhere via the top end of the village thus keeping traffic through the village to a minimum. Traffic coming through the village is already an issue without the new village hall being sited right in the middle at Sandways.

• Walking through with many young children, as I do on a daily basis, I would hate to see increased traffic to the village which siting the new hall at Sandways would bring.

---

In my mind it would be devastating to put a development on the edge of our village, a site mentioned on the village plan as having important views that should not be developed on. Not to mention a site entrance near the brow of a very busy and dangerous part of a main road…

The car parking area could be used for the church. The church has its own car park ample room for its needs as it only has a service on a Monday morning for a few people and about one Sunday a month, I have also seen them use the school playground on the odd occasion.

The school could have an AstroTurf.What school wouldn’t if offered but really I think they are very lucky

30

to have a netball pitch mapped out at the front of the building a lovely swimming pool to the side and a large playing field with football pitch on the other.

I think to take pupils from the corner of church track up the hill would be more dangerous than crossing West Bourton road if they use the sandways site.

It was also mentioned the sandways site would be best for a wildlife park and the area for recreation was flat enough for a football pitch which would be great for the 11+pupils who use the school field in the evenings and weekends.

As the school added a new hall several years ago I can’t see their need to use a village hall they have ample room for their Christmas plays extra and bring in an income from letting it out for public use.

Appendix B

Extract from Bourton Neighbourhood Plan: Policy 5: New Village Hall.

a) Either of the two sites indicated on the proposals map is deemed to be suitable for the development of a village hall and the provision of associated amenity space. A small housing development may also be provided on the site in order to make the release of the land viable for the use of a village hall and associated amenity space.

b) The permitted site shall provide an area of at least 2.1 ha to be apportioned as follows: - approximately 0.3 ha to the village hall and a parking and manoeuvring area, and; - approximately 1.5 ha to amenity space of a reasonably level gradient and quality immediately adjacent to the village hall building, and; - approximately 0.3 ha to the housing development.

c) The land for the village hall and amenity space, as specified in criterion b) above if not already transferred to the ownership of the Parish Council shall prior to any grant of planning permission on any part of the site for any aspect of the proposed development be transferred to the ownership of the parish Council as part of a S106 agreement or similar legal instrument. This process will be subject to an open table discussion between the LPA, the Parish Council and the applicant.

31

d) The land to be transferred to the Parish Council shall be transferred in a cleared state with services and access road provided to the site entrance point or there shall be a legal agreement on such provision.

e) Development proposals for this site are required to include: - screening, using native species planting to lessen visual impact and to limit the impact of noise on neighbouring households; - the augmentation of ecological value on the site as discussed in the relevant Ecological Impact Assessment; - housing consisting mainly of small family homes: 10 - measures that protect heritage assets and their setting.

f) The decision-making process on Planning Applications for the proposed site options will be carried out by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with this policy as part of the plan-led process and having taken into account any other material considerations, including the identified wishes of the residents as expressed through the Parish Council

32