Consultation Statement - Bassetlaw District Council elections€¦ · Council. A total of 15 residents attended this initial forum contact details were taken by Simon Bell and an

Sutton cum Lound Neighbourhood Plan

Consultation Statement

2016-2031

Sutton cum Lound Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2031

1

General Overview

The Sutton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (SG) considered differing engagement techniques and sought advice to ensure the engagement was undertaken correctly and that all sectors of the community were given the opportunity to have their say on the contents and policies within the plan. From the beginning, it was identified that active and effective consultation would be critical in producing a Plan which would ultimately win the support of the residents of the Parish. The methods used are listed below:

• Door to door leafleting of the whole village

• Questionnaires distributed to the village

• Social events at the Village Hall

• Public consultations

• Publications in the village newsletter

• Attendance at community events

• Stall at the village summer fayre

• Shop displays

• Newspaper entries

• Neighbourhood Plan and village website

• Social media

The consultation undertaken summarised in this document has been undertaken by the Steering

Group of the Plan in partnership with Community Planning Officers from Bassetlaw District

Council. The SG consists of 9 local residents of which 4 were at some point also members of the

Parish Council.


2

Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Formation (10th April 2015)

Overview

The leaflet below was distributed to the entire village inviting them to volunteer and/or express an interest in the Neighbourhood Plan. This was supported by an article in the village newsletter and an email sent to all of village website’s subscribers.

Results

An informal drop-in meeting was held on 10th April with the assistance of Bassetlaw District Council. A total of 15 residents attended this initial forum contact details were taken by Simon Bell and an e mail contact list was created.


3

First Questionnaire (June 2015) Overview

The questionnaire below was distributed throughout the village to gather residents’ feedback and to help shape the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group was represented at various groups to encourage residents to complete and return the questionnaire.


4

Meet the Neighbours – 9th June 2015 Overview

Members of the SG attended the monthly event for the “Meet The Neighbours” on 9th June 2015. The meeting was held at the local public house, the Gate Inn and was attended by 38 residents. Everyone attending the event was sat at allocated tables and Simon addressed each table to introduce the Neighbourhood Plan, explain how important their involvement was and to distribute questionnaires.

Results

A total of 4 residents completed and returned their questionnaires. Commitment was made by the most residents to read through the document and return at a later date.

Parent, Teacher, Friends Association (PTFA) – 9th June 2015 Overview

Paula attended the village school’s “PTFA” meeting with 6 residents in attendance. Paula explained the importance of a Neighbourhood Plan and also expressed to the school the importance of children’s involvement in the process. It was at this meeting the Neighbourhood Plan group were invited to attend the school’s Summer Fayre to promote the process. Results

The Neighbourhood Plan steering group confirmed that they would have stall at the school’s Summer Fayre and also place an advertisement on the Summer Fayre brochure.

Sutton Art Group – 12th June 2015 Overview

The weekly meeting of the Sutton Art Group was attended by Simon. Simon gave a brief presentation to everyone present and encouraged everyone to complete a questionnaire. Results

Approximately 10 residents were in attendance and most agreed to complete the questionnaire.

Sutton Church – 21st June 2015 Overview

Monica gave a talk to the congregation to explain the merits of the Neighbourhood Plan and to encourage everyone’s’ involvement, especially through the questionnaire.

Results

Approximately 5 residents were in attendance. There wasn’t opportunity during the service or afterwards to gather feedback.


5

Family Fun Night – 26th June 2015 Overview

A flyer was distributed to the entire village advertising the Family Fun Night. This was supported by invitations on the village website, on the Neighbourhood Plan’s Facebook page and on the Neighbourhood Plan’s website. Posters were also placed around the village promoting the event.

A bouncy castle and table top football were on hand for the children to enjoy. The bar was open for the adults and free pizza was available.

The purpose of the event was to raise awareness of the Neighbourhood Plan and support the return of our first questionnaire. Maps were displayed for the residents to express their opinions on the future development of the village using Post-It notes. Questionnaires were also distributed to everyone who came and members of the Steering Group were present to discuss the Plan. Results

A total of 39 residents attended including children. 18 questionnaires were returned and feedback was provided on Post-It notes.

General Feedback

• Great concern surrounding rumours of potential development in the paddock opposite The Gate Inn. Mentioned by most residents with all in opposition to the land being built on.

• There was some confusion regarding the undertaking of a Neighbourhood Plan despite the Parish Plan only being concluded a few years earlier.


6

• Lots of concern over the speed of traffic through the village and any potential development adding to this.

• General consensus that limited development should take place with affordable starter homes and family homes recommended.

Specific Feedback

(quotes taken from comments on the display)

• To thrive this village has to expand, whether we like it or not.

• Keep our footpaths and develop more.

• Keep green spaces.

• No housing here (paddock opposite The Gate Inn).

• Don’t develop the Manor green spaces (paddock opposite The Gate Inn).

• Limited development only – no sprawling estates (fields south of Lound Low Round).

• No building on green spaces.

• More houses more problems.

• Don’t get rid of fields and open spaces.

• Keep green spaces!! Don’t over populate village causing added pressure on the school.

• Make sure aesthetics of the village remain.

• No houses here (fields south of houses on Portland Place).

• Keep development down so we do not join Retford.

• More houses more problems.

• No houses here, the private area behind the houses is nice (south of Portland Place).

• More affordable small houses to enable our children to stay in the village.

• Even up houses on either side of Sutton Lane with affordable housing.

• Development on Sutton Lane would limit additional traffic through the village.

• Some affordable housing at junction (Sutton Lane / North Road junction).

• Less heavy traffic through the village. Speed monitored better.

• Family homes to help sustain the village school and shop.

• Concerns over more housing equals more traffic through the village.


7

The Great Sutton Show – 19th July 2015 Overview

The Great Sutton Show is an annual event held at the village school by the School PTFA. The Neighbourhood Plan had a stall at the only entrance to event. Maps of the village and parish were displayed on boards. A banner stand was used to identify the stall and members of the Steering Group were on hand throughout the day to promote the Plan. An incentive of entering a prize draw for a “barrow of booze” was offered to everyone who completed a questionnaire on the day or who confirmed they had already done this.

Results

Over 1000 people attended the event and everyone had to pass the Neighbourhood Plan stall and were asked if they were a resident of Sutton and if so invited to complete a questionnaire. 40 questionnaires were completed and returned.

General Feedback

• The Group were able to raise the profile of the Neighbourhood Plan to everyone who attended however most residents didn’t want to take the time to discuss the Plan in detail and this was also reflected in the brief content of the majority of the returned questionnaires.

• A lot of people attending the event were from outside the village.

• Concerns were raised about development in the paddock opposite The Gate Inn.


8

Questionnaire Analysis – July 2015 Overview

102 completed questionnaires were received and all were analysed by the Steering Group. The three questions that we asked were deliberately open which meant a wide variety of responses were provided. The table below summarises the most commonly mentioned subjects in the questionnaires.

Comment / Feedback Responses

Traffic speed 41

Planning control concerns 24

Make better use of the village hall And unite the village 22

Dog fouling and control issues 22

Negative comments towards development 18

Desire for better park equipment / playing field 17

Village to remain unchanged 16

Footpaths 13

Entertainment for older children 13

Litter concerns and over grown hedges / footpaths 12

Traffic volume and lorries 11

Bus services 10

Amenities - shop, post office 8

Parking concerns 6

Affordable housing for local children 3

Private/council Low Cost Housing 2

Drainage concerns 2

Shortage of small properties 2

Level crossing closure 2

A638 / Sutton Lane Junction concerns 2

Further analysis was completed to identify more specific comments that could help guide the next stage of the neighbourhood Plan. These considerations were then summarised into the categories shown below. Type of development

• Classification of housing (no rental properties, mixed opinion on council or social housing).

• Size of houses.

• Parking provision for new houses.

• Density of housing.

• Encouragement for private starter homes, affordable homes and family homes.

• Protect character of village – historic buildings and heritage of village. • No single, large development surrounding or skirting the village. No sprawling estates.

Location development


9

• Sutton Lane identified as a possible site.

• Cross Roads at Sutton Lane / North Road junction recommended as a site.

• Ribbon development on Sutton Lane to develop side of road without housing.

• No development behind Portland Place. Protect Green Spaces

• Rural views to be protected.

• Rural nature of village to be maintained.

• Protect surrounding fields. Protect Character and Heritage of Village

• Control development.

• Protect green spaces in village centre.

• Protect green spaces throughout the village.

• Limited development.

• Control infill development.

• No development.

• Positive for development.

Infrastructure

• Drainage issues already exist without adding to the burden (especially Portland Place).

• Concerns of additional pressure place on infrastructure.

• Support local amenities (shop, pub, church, post office, village hall, school).


10

Second Questionnaire (September 2015) Overview

Following analysis of the information from the initial public consultations, the Steering Group formulated a second questionnaire with a view to obtaining more targeted feedback on any future development within the Parish.

The questionnaire was delivered to every house in the village with additional copies made available at the Village Hall and at the village shop. An electronic copy of the questionnaire was also created online. Residents were able to return their questionnaires to three listed members of the Steering Group, to a post box located at the village shop or electronically. An incentive was put in place to encourage the return of questionnaires (this was an iPad Mini 2 with each completed document being entered in the prize draw). The questionnaire was promoted at a series of dedicated events, by advertising on the village web site, the Neighbourhood Plan website, social media, Neighbourhood Watch direct email and in an article in the village newsletter.


11

Quiz Night – 25th September 2015 Overview

The second questionnaire was launched at a quiz night that had been planned to support and encourage the participation of residents. A flyer was distributed to the village advertising the quiz night. This was supported by invitations on the village website, on the Neighbourhood Plan’s Facebook page and on the Neighbourhood Plan’s website. Posters were also placed around the village promoting the event. Every resident who attended was welcomed by a member of the Steering Group and provided with a copy of the questionnaire. Free food was provided and the quiz night was presented by a member of the Steering Group.

The quiz night was opened with a speech discussing the Neighbourhood Plan’s progress,

confirming the launch of the second questionnaire and encouraging everyone to be involved.

Results

61 residents attended the evening and some questionnaires were completed on the evening with

commitment from most people to return in the coming days.

The aim of the event was to launch the second questionnaire and raise its profile. The nature of

the evening made it difficult to capture detailed feedback.


12

Open Evening – 22nd and 29th October 2015 Overview

The leaflet shown below was distributed to the village inviting residents to attend to our open evenings. The events were also advertised on the village website, on the Neighbourhood Plan website and on Facebook.

The events were held to capture any additional feedback and to support the return of more questionnaires. Members of the Steering Group were available for discussion and boards displaying maps and supporting documents were arranged.


13

Results

The events were reasonably well supported with approximately 10 residents attending the first

event and 15 attending the second. The majority had already completed a questionnaire and

they had come to check on the progress of the Plan.

General Feedback

• Concerns were raised about the sale of land by Nottinghamshire County Council to the south of the village. Residents were fearful that this could lead to large scale development and bring the village closer to Retford.

• The type of housing was discussed with a general view being that more affordable homes are required to help sustain the village and it’s amenities.

• The issue of parking was raised with suggestions that this should be considered with any new development.

• Some residents expressed their concern at potential development behind existing properties.

Meet The Neighbours – 13th October 2015 Overview

Simon and Ron attended the monthly Meet the Neighbours event held at The Gate Inn public

house. Approximately 35 residents attended. A brief speech was made and the draw for an iPad

was completed.

Results

The main purpose of the event was to publicly draw the iPad prize. Encouragement was given for any outstanding questionnaires to be completed.

Sutton cum Lound School – 23rd October 2015 Overview

Children from the village attending the local primary school were given an overview of the

Neighbourhood Plan. They were then asked three questions.


14

• What do you like about the village?

• What don’t you like about the village?

• How could the village be improved?

Results

What do you like about the village?

• Safe

• Peaceful

• Fun places

• Mr Picks Shop (closed November 2015)

• That we have lots of farms

• The nice people

What don’t you like about the village?

• Large farm vehicles (like harvesters) at night coming through the village

• People who go too quickly in cars

• Not a lot of nice flowers

• Don’t like the trains

How could the village be improved?

• Football pitch

• Tennis pitch

• Sweet shop (as well as chocolate)

• Pond with a fountain

• Bigger houses

• Pet shop

• Pound shop

• Nice flowers


15

Business Questionnaire and Open Evening – November 2015 Overview

There are 41 businesses operating or registered in the Parish. A dedicated survey was distributed to each business and this was supported by an open evening held on 19th November.

Results

We received four completed questionnaires and unfortunately nobody attended the open evening.

Specific Feedback

Reasons for locating business in village.

• Convenience – close to mainline station and not far from Humberside Airport

• Home address Plans for future expansion.

• Unsure or none

• Any expansion would be completed at current location (home address) Requirements for Business to grow.

• Good broadband and phone connection

• Removal of level crossings and alternatives put in place Desired new development in terms or type, location and size.

• Some building of affordable homes

• Light industry on approaching roads


16

Questionnaire Analysis – November 2015 Overview

170 questionnaires were completed, representing a great show of support for the Plan.

Each response has been analysed by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and this document

provides a summary for each question.

Demographics

Age? How long have you lived in Sutton?

Age Group Responses Percentage

Undefined 12 7%

Under 16 8 5%

17-24 9 5%

25-40 20 12%

41-64 75 44%

65+ 46 27%

Time In Village (Years) Responses Percentage

Undefined 10 6%

1 - 5 47 28%

6 - 10 27 16%

11 - 20 34 20%

21 - 30 23 14%

31+ 29 17%

Responses by postcode

Street - Postcode Total Electors Responses

Portland Place (8QB) 119 36

Station Road (8QA) 49 23

Sutton Lane 48 21

Portland Place (8PP) 61 16

Town Street 72 16

Station Road (8PZ) 39 9

Lound Low Road (8PN) 20 7

Mire Lane 21 7

Portland Meadows 25 6

Clyro Place 37 4

Long Acre 6 4

Mattersey Road 11 4

Church Way 7 1

Portland Bungalows 4 1

Portland Flats 9 1

Corner Farm Close 4 0

Lound Low Road (8SD) 9 0

Lound Low Road (8SB) 2 0

North Road (8SF) 2 0

North Road (8SE) 3 0

St Bartholomews Court 9 0

Sutton Cross Road 10 0


17

Question One. Thinking about the village, how would you like Sutton described in 16 years’

time?

Description Responses

Safe 145

Friendly 140

Rural 136

Attractive 122

Tranquil 109

Traditional 107

Affordable 55

Accessible 47

Prosperous 39

Vibrant 27

Question Two. Please consider how many homes you would like to see built in Sutton bearing

in mind this is over the next 16 years and populations naturally increase?

Number Of Houses Responses

Up to 10 41

Up to 20 43

Up to 30 32

Up to 40 20

Up to 50 23

The average figure is 26 houses

Nb. All responses received for at least one

positive option have been included.

Question Three. Our next question is on what type of site would you like to see development?

Type of Site Responses

Ribbon Development (i.e. alongside entrance roads) 85

Within existing spaces in the village 79

Outside the current village boundary (i.e. beyond the built-up area) 52

Other (please specify) 0


18

Question Four. Are there any sites in Sutton that you think should be developed?

Please tell us which sites and what types of development you think would be most suitable.

Site Responses

Mattersey Road - Ribbon Development 24

Sutton Lane - Ribbon Development 20

Station Road (after level crossing)* 17

Corner House Farm** 14

Gate Cottage Paddock 12

Land between Lound Low Road and Portland Place 12

Lound Low Road - Ribbon Development 12

Land North of St Bartholomew's Court 7

Sutton Cross Roads 4

Bowling Green 3

Fields North Side Sutton Lane 2

Paddock to rear of playpark 2

Wetlands* 1

Alongside the railway 1

Near Daneshill 1

Manor Paddock 1

Land continuing on Town Street towards bowling green 1

Mattersey Road 1

Question Five. Are there any sites in Sutton that you think should NOT be developed?

Please tell us which sites and why you think they should be protected.

Site Responses

Manor Paddock 63

Portland Place Green 18

Paddock to rear of playpark 14

Village Green 14

St Bartholomew's 12

Fields to rear of Station Road 10

Sutton Lane 9

Gate Paddock 9

Village Hall Grounds 8

Lound Low Road 3

Fields North Side Sutton Lane 2

Wetlands* 2

Corner House Farm** 2

Fields South Side Sutton Lane 2

Mire Lane 1

Farm land behind church 1

Portland Place 1


19

*cannot be considered because the site is outside Sutton Parish **cannot be considered

because the site is already subject to planning permission

Question Six. What type of housing do you think the village will need over the next 16 years?

Please tell us which sites & what type of development you think would be most suitable.

Type of Housing Responses

Affordable/Starter 69

Family Homes 36

Mixed 26

Fit in with existing designs / Properties with character 15

OAP Bungalows 9

Detached (up to 4 bedrooms) 9

No High Density 8

Not for Rent 4

Drives and Gardens 3

Sheltered 3

Semi Detached 3

Bungalows 2

Question Seven. Should energy saving measures be an important part of any new

development?

Answer Responses

Yes 147

No 12

Please let us know if you have any ideas or preference for this (e.g. new homes to achieve grade

A or B Energy Performance Certificates).

Abbreviated Comments

"A" energy rating Ground source Nothing over zealous

"B" energy rating Double glazing Solar panels

Wind turbines Triple glazing Within properties

Good insulation Sun pipes Street lighting options


20

Question Eight. What natural features, buildings or man-made structures do you think

contribute most to the special character of Sutton?

Feature Responses

Town Street 55

Open Spaces / Greens 47

School 46

Rural Nature 40

Historic Buildings 25

Village Hall 24

Walks 18

Sutton Manor Paddock 17

Pub 15

Mix Of Old And New 12

Church 10

Trees 10

Nature Reserves 7

Feature Responses

Playpark 7

Footpaths 6

Planters 5

Signage 2

Well Kept Gardens 2

Size Of Village 1

Mire Lane 1

Level Crossings 1

Narrow Pavements 1

Christmas Tree 1

Bartholomews Court 1

Lack Of Development 1

Question Nine. Are there any features that you think should be specially protected from change?

Feature Responses

Church 60

Open Greens 32

Sutton Manor Paddock 28

Village Hall 27

Pub 25

Rural Nature 22

Agricultural Land 16

School 15

Walks / Footpaths 13

Shop 12

Historic Buildings 9

Nature Reserves 6

Feature Responses

Playpark 5

Town Street 5

Trees 2

Mire Lane 2

Property Diversity 1

Planters 1

Christmas Tree 1

Bus Services 1

Whole Village 1

Station Road 1

Village Boundary 1


21

Question Ten. Are there any features that you think detract from the village character or need

improvement?

Features Responses

Traffic Calming 16

Horticultural Improvements 15

Village Greens 10

Individual Homes 9

Parking 8

Village Hall Improvements 8

Bus Shelter 6

Fly Tipping / Litter 6

Improved Play Park 5

Level Crossing Closure 5

Footpath Improvements 4

Vicarage 3

Additional Waste Bins 3

Phone Box 2

Features Responses

Signal Box 2

Dog Fouling 2

War Memorial 2

Large Farm Vehicles 2

Village Cleaner 1

Improved Signage 1

Size Of School 1

Public Transport 1

Roundabout Station Rd 1

Bowling Green 1

Sewage Portland Place 1

Quantity Of Traffic 1

Lawn Mower Site 1

Question Eleven. What improvements to the village would you like to see?

Features Responses

Wild Flower Areas 127

Historical Information Board 97

More Trees 73

Tree Protection Orders 71

Floral Displays 59

Sports Field 49

Allotments 21

More Dog Walking Areas 16

Well Maintained Footpaths 3

More Footpaths 3

Improved Signage 2

Bowling Green 1


22

Question Twelve. Do you use any of the following village amenities?

Amenity Responses

Shop 156

Pub 135

Village Hall 132

Post Office 87

Church 79

School 41

Question Thirteen. What other amenities would you like to see in the village?

Amenity Responses

Pavement Improvements 25

Planters Portland Place 17

Larger Village Green 10

Improved Signage 9

Cash Machine 8

Duck Pond 7

Community Events 6

Dogs Exercise Area 5

Amenity Responses

Village Hall Improvements 4

Cycle Routes 4

Salon 4

More Frequent Bus 3

Café/Takeaway 3

Trees On Large Green 3

Care Home 2

Motocross 2

Question Fourteen. Please let us know if you have additional comments regarding any section

of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Abbreviated Comments

Smoke Control Improvement to highways No estates

Against evolution of Village Car parking Noisy

Dog fouling Friendly village Protect green belt

No overdevelopment Attract younger people Homes for purchase not rent

Keep crossings open Speed control Street lights off

Heritage area Nuclear village Map with questionnaire

Caution with weed spraying Village identity Considered development

Support school Improved bus service No social housing

Protection of open spaces Conservation area Lack of events Village Hall

Museum Opposed to executive homes New development off road parking


23

Neighbourhood Plan Update – March 2016

Overview

A public consultation was held to update residents on the progress of the Neighbourhood Plan and to capture their feedback. Landowners were also invited to gain a better understanding of the Plan and to discuss the inclusion of their land as potential sites.

The following topics were highlighted and displayed at the event.

• Questionnaire Analysis

• Vision and Objectives

• Projects

• Site Assessment Report

• Sustainability Appraisal – Scoping Report

The event was held at Sutton-Cum-Lound Village Hall on Thursday 3rd March between 5 and 9pm. It was conducted on a drop-in basis with members of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and Bassetlaw District Council being available throughout the evening. The Steering Group were using the opportunity to gather as much feedback as possible to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan remained an accurate representation of the residents’ viewpoints.

Each topic was displayed on a board with copies available for distribution. The boards were set-up to encourage residents to view the Questionnaire Analysis, Vision and Objectives, Projects, Sustainability Appraisal and then the largest display showing the Site Assessment Report which included a map of the village and individual maps for each potential site.


24

The event had been advertised by the Steering Group using the following methods.

• Leaflet distribution to every house in the village

• Invitation sent using the Village website’s email notification (circa 100 recipients)

• Invitation sent using the Neighbourhood Watch’s email (circa 170 recipients)

• Article on Neighbourhood Plan’s website

• Communication on Village’s Website

• Facebook post and entry Attendance

The advertisements generated a lot of interest and this was shown by our website receiving 184 individual hits and our Facebook posting being viewed 178 times. We were pleased to achieve a turnout of 81 residents. Numerous landowners also attended the meeting. All residents participated and expressed their views on each topic however the Site Assessment display did attract the most attention. Results

Site Assessment Report

A total of 20 potential sites were identified prior to the event and these were displayed in maps showing all sites in one document and on individual maps of each site. 7 of these sites have been brought forward or confirmed by feedback provided during the Neighbourhood Plan process. 13 sites have been identified by Bassetlaw District Council.

One version of the village map displayed the origin of each site denoted by colour (blue for Neighbourhood Plan identified sites and pink for Bassetlaw District Council sites). A second map was used to display the Sustainability Appraisal for each site with the assessment

displayed using a traffic light system (green to indicate the site would be available for housing,

amber to indicate the site maybe available and red to indicate the site would not be supported).


25


26

Feedback

General Feedback

• All of the feedback relating to the Vision and Objectives was positive.

• Majority of comments received regarding the questionnaire analysis related to the total projected number of new houses. Most residents were comfortable with the figure (26) although some did express concern that was relatively low over a sixteen year period.

• Residents were generally more concerned with the location of sites rather than the total number of new houses. The Site Assessment Report boards were very popular and a lot discussion took place on the merits of each site.

• The main discussion points for the Projects list centred on additional playground equipment and traffic calming. Parking was also a popular topic.

• The type of housing was a popular discussion point with a general view being that more affordable homes should be created with a view to attracting younger families and also to provide residents within the village (particularly children and young adults) the opportunity to remain in the village.

• Majority of residents would not like development to take place at the back of homes. Existing open aspects and views are valued.

• All of the landowners who attended expressed interest an in their land being used as potential sites and they were encouraged to confirm this formally by contacting the group or BDC after the event.

• Concern that NP03 will link Mattersey Road to Lound Low Road and in doing so create a short cut or “rat run”. Desire for the site to be linear development along Mattersey Road or Lound Low Road, not a connection for two the roads.

• Suggestion that housing with low roofs would not be a problem on site NP02.

• Fear that building on BDC09 would spoil Town Street.

• Desire for all the open spaces along Town Street should be maintained, and was directed to one particular – overset side of road to BDC 14 entrance.

• The possibility of a road on NP03 linking Mattersey Road and Lound Low Road was well received by some residents on the grounds this would alleviate some of the highway problems located around Church Lane.


27

Specific Feedback

Specific comments received on each site are summarised below. These comments were received by email, on feedback forms or on Post-It notes.

• Request for confirmation on what exactly affordable housing is. Housing association houses are not needed.

• Concerns that 26 houses is a lot for a small village and that potentially the village’s character could be lost. Request not to build on green land and to use small infill plots instead. House to be in keeping with existing homes in the village and not “dolls houses”.

• Concerned by the number of potential sites, especially when only 4 homes were allocated previously. Worried ribbon development towards Retford will lead to the village merging with the town. Character of any houses should be in keeping with existing properties

• Request for the area of each site, an indication of many houses would be built on each one and whether any green space would be incorporated.

• Desire for the rural character of the village to be retained and enhanced.

• Introduction of a build model to encourage housing churn and therefore more opportunity on the housing ladder. Address the in-balance of current housing stock and cater for young families and young members of the village wishing to remain. Parking is an issue and this needs to be considered more when granting planning permission. Parking for two cars is insufficient for most homes already. Separate planning regulation should govern rural communities to better reflect the needs and aspirations of those affected.

• General desire for BDC08, BDC07 and BDC06 to remain undeveloped for the benefit of wildlife and open aspects for Portland Place.

• Concern that green spaces in the village are being developed and lost. This will detract from the rural character of the village and increase traffic. Preference for sites on outskirts of the village to be developed.

Residential Sites

Specific comments received in writing on each site are summarised below. NP01

• Least disruptive site to existing dwellings and therefore an ideal location. Ribbon Development could be supported if right mix of housing granted in line with the church.


28

• Development of this site could provide more security to the church.

• Would help the church become more integrated in to the village.

NP02

• Correct style of housing should allow this site to be supported and the church is in the heart of some villages.

NP03

• Ribbon development is not as obtrusive and this site should be supported.

• Request for allotments.

• Concerns that a local road connection would be a mistake.

• Concerned that this is not really a ribbon development.

• Development of this site could provide more security to the church.

• Would help the church become more integrated in to the village.

• General support because the site is central to the village and causes minimal disruption. BDC04

• Concerns raised for the access of the site but generally supported.

• Request for the houses already granted planning permission to be included in the 26 contained within the Neighbourhood Plan.

• Desire for the 12 houses already granted planning permission to be included in the Neighbourhood Plan.

NP05

• Supported on grounds that it is the least disruptive to existing dwellings and ribbon development towards Lound is favoured over development towards Retford.

• Concerns over increased traffic, especially on a dangerous bend.

• Support for linear development but concerned about sites BDC20 / BDC06 / BDC19 and BDC07 becoming available as a result.

• General support because the site is fairly central to the village and causes minimal disruption. BDC06

• Concerns with access and service issues.


29

• General support because the site is fairly central to the village and causes minimal disruption. BDC07 BDC08 BDC09

• General expression against.

• Concern that green spaces within the village are being developed and lost. Desire for this to become allotments or community space.

BDC10

• Unsure why this site isn’t supported with access from Sutton Lane. NP11

• Ideal location with minimal disruption to existing residents but concerns over uncertainty of new land owner.

• Concerns raised over modern housing being built which will detract from the character of the village, especially because this is an entrance to the village which is currently surrounded by houses of rural character and bungalows.

• Request for allotments. BDC12

• Concern that the size of the site will attract a large development. Also potential issue with flooding on the site and possible compulsory purchase order by Network Rail in the railway crossing closes.

• Concerns regarding congestion, disruption to existing properties and with regards to flooding.

BDC13 BDC14

• Expression that this could be supported with the demolition of a dwelling to provide access in the same way as BDC12.

BDC15 BDC16


30

NP17

• Ideal for cluster of houses, near a bus stop. NP18

• Concerns about development linking the village with Retford.

• Ideal for cluster of houses, near a bus stop.

BDC19 BDC20

• Concern that the site is too big and if developed would make the village into a small town.

• General support because the site is fairly central to the village and causes minimal disruption.

The Great Sutton Show – 17th July 2016 Overview

The annual Great Sutton Show took place at the village school and was organised and promoted by the School PTFA. An advertisement for the Plan was entered into The Great Sutton Show brochure and this was handed out to everyone who attended and also distributed to every home in the village. The Neighbourhood Plan took a stall at the single entry point to the site to ensure that all attendees had the opportunity to view and engage with the Plan. The following items were on display.

• Maps of the main village, the parish and preferred sites


• Projects

• Questionnaire Analysis



• Current Public Consultation Summary A banner stand promoted the stall and members of the Steering Group were in attendance to discuss the plan with residents.


31

Results

The attendance was over 1000 and every person had to pass the stand to access the event. A large proportion of visitors were from outside the village however we did engage with lots of residents.

General Feedback

• Several conversations were held regarding the housing mix with younger residents expressing a desire for affordable starter homes and family homes. General opinion was for a mix of homes to be built with strong views of supporting the school.

• Concern was expressed about site BDC12 mainly from residents who would be directly affected by any development on this site.

• General support was expressed for the preferred sites.

• Several queries were lodged against site NPO1 not being supported.

• The status of BDC04 was questioned with regards to the existing permissions in place.

• Site NP11 was a cause of concern with regards to the type of development detracting from the homes opposite and along the entrance to the village.

• The suggested link road on site NP03 joining Lound Low Road and Mattersey Road received a mixed response. Some positive feedback suggested that it would alleviate traffic however opposing views expressed concerns that the siting of the entrance on Lound Low Road would either promote speeding towards the proposed junction with Mattersey Road or mean the road was not used by through traffic.


32

Neighbourhood Plan Update – November 2016 Overview

An informal public consultation was held to provide residents with the opportunity to review the progress of the plan and provide any feedback before the draft Plan takes shape. The following topics were highlighted and displayed at the event.

• Maps displaying the preferred sites

• Key policies identified for inclusion in the Plan

• Current Public Consultation Summary


• Projects



The event was held at Sutton-Cum-Lound Village Hall on Thursday 24th November between 5 and 8pm. It was a drop-in event with members of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and Bassetlaw District Council in attendance. The main goals of the event were to talk through the Plan’s key policies and the background to the preferred sites.


33

The event had been promoted by the Steering Group using the following methods.

• Leaflet distribution to every house in the village

• Invitation sent using the Village website’s email notification (circa 100 recipients)

• Invitation sent using the Neighbourhood Watch’s email (circa 170 recipients)

• Article on Neighbourhood Plan’s website

• Communication on Village’s Website

Attendance

The advertisements generated a strong level of interest and this was confirmed by our website receiving 166 hits. We were pleased to achieve a turnout of approximately 40 residents on the evening and some landowners also attended. A good level of discussion took place with both the proposed policies and preferred sites drawing attention. Results

General Feedback

• Broad support for all three preferred sites which were described as sensible and a logical choice.

• Concern that development on site NP11 (Sutton Lane) would be out of character to the surrounding homes.

• Several comments voicing opposition to BDC12 (Station Road).

• Support for the removal of the proposed link road in site NP03 between Lound Low Road and Mattersey on the grounds it would not provide an effective means of relieving traffic or alleviating the dangerous bends on the entrance to the centre of the village on Lound Low Road because this would remain the most convenient route.

• Confusion on why NP01 has not been brought forward despite it being considered as a sensible site with minimal impact.

• Strong opposition to site BDC14 being developed.

• Desire for a mixture of homes, especially more affordable family homes to cater for growing families.

• Concern at traffic created on Lound Low Road by any development on sites NP03 and NP05.

• Suggestion that a link road on NP03 between Lound Low Road and Mattersey Road specifically designed to direct traffic away from the dangerous bends on Lound Low Road would serve the community well. A thoughtfully designed link road would allow the safe flow of traffic direct from Lound Low Road without introducing a junction or bend which would


34

encourage its use and potentially allow the closure of through traffic on the remaining stretch of Lound Low Road.

• Support for all of the policies, especially policies one (a mix of housing types) and two (design of residential development).

• Support for growth and development within the village to attract younger residents and to help support the school, pub and village hall.

• Exclusion from the Plan of sites not being brought forward was well received by residents. Concerns were expressed that these sites may still come forward despite not receiving support from the community.

• Request for green spaces to be included in any development on the preferred sites.

• Objection raised to any development on sites to BDC6, BDC7 and BDC8 due to sewerage and access issues.

• Request for allotments to be provided as part of any development that takes place.

• Concerns raised regarding site NP11 by resident who does not want development opposite

their property.

• Query on why NP14 was not included as a preferred site.

• Request for more green spaces as part of any development.

• Expression opposing the provision of allotments.

• Support for the considerate and sympathetic development of BDC12 with a donation or gift

being made to the village.

Specific Feedback

NP11

• Strong support.

• Expression of support.

• Concern that development will detract from rural characteristics of the village.

• Concerns over flooding. NP03

• Strong support.

• Expression of support.


35

• Restrict development to prevent the site becoming an estate.

• Request for part of the site to become allotments. NP05

• Strong support.

• Expression of support. BDC12

• Against due to liability of flooding. BDC07

• Support as an extension of Portland Place.

BDC08

• Support as an extension of Portland Place.


36

Regulation 14 Consultation

The statutory 6-week consultation on the Pre-Submission Plan ran from 22nd December to 16th

February. BDC assisted the group in contacting the statutory consultees by sending an e-mail to

all those on their data base for Local Plan consultation.

The Steering Group were responsible for contacting local residents and groups. A NP summary

leaflet was sent to every household and a public meeting was held in January seeking comments

on the Plan.

The table below summarises the responses from the statutory consultees highlighting

particularly where these responses caused an amendment to the Submission Version of the Plan.

Copies of the complete responses are available from the parish council upon request.

Consultee Section of

Plan Comments Amendments

Amendments

made

Bassetlaw District

Council

General BDC confirmed that the NP

met the basic conditions. n/a


37



Amendments

made

Bassetlaw District

Council

General

Advised that Core Strategy

being replaced and

references to district policy

rather than core strategy

would future proof NP

better.

Yes

Text amended

to reflect

comment

although noted

that basic

conditions

require

conformity with

adopted

policies which

are those in the

core strategy.

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 2

SHMA ref should be 2013

when full version produced

– noted but 2014 summary

produced.

Yes

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 3

Wording of how NP will

work with district policy

should be amended.

Yes

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 4

Minor wording changes

suggested. Yes

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Bassetlaw District

Council

Section 7

Advised not to use map and

identify heritage assets as

these can change but to

provide a link to Historic

England web site.

Highlighted Notts Wildlife

Trust project and potential

connection.

No

No

It was

considered that

the map and list

was helpful to

local people in

raising

awareness of

where the

heritage assets

were .Website

is also listed.

PC will pursue

separately from

NP.


38



Amendments

made

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 9

Suggested friendly was not

a useful word in the vision

statement.

Yes

‘Friendly’ kept

in because the

vision came

from

community

consultation

but did add

‘attractive’.

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 10

Concern that objective

relating to speeding is not

land use.

Objective 5 and 6

improvements to wording

suggested.

Yes

Yes

Footnote added

to say this

relates to

aspirational

policy 1.

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 11/12

Minor wording

amendments re para 58

and pre-application

consultation.

Yes

Text amended

to reflect

comment.


39



Amendments

made

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 13

Questioned use of the

word “narrow” regarding

colour palette and

materials, commenting it

did not reflect the range of

designs.

Considered NP1 3B too

restrictive and not

reflecting possible layout

issues on one of the

proposed site allocations.

No

Yes

Steering group

consider that

although there

are a range of

designs the

colour palette

and use of

materials is

relatively

narrow and this

was what the

community

wanted

continuing.

Policy wording

amended see

NP1(3)C.

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 15

Suggested introductory text

of policy reworded to

provide more robust policy

language.

Use of phrase open aspect

could be seen as overly

restrictive in NP3 and 5.

Allocation of land south of

Lound Low Road required

wording to require either

NP3 to be completed or

the site with planning

permission to be built out.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Introductory

text amended

to reflect

comment on all

site allocation

policies.

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Policy 4

amended see

NP4(1)a and b.


40



Amendments

made

Infill policy 6 was

considered unnecessary.

No NP6 is a

reflection of

community

concern about

the need to

carefully

manage infill.

There are sites

within the

village that

could be the

subject of a

planning

application that

would harm the

character of the

village

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 17

Clarification required over

timescale when more than

10 people wanted an

allotment.

NP7 specific reference to

allotment site should be

included.

Yes

No

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Reference

already made in

NP7.

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 18

Ref to Bassetlaw’s

Landscape Character

assessment required.

Minor wording changes re

footpath connectivity.

NP8 suggested

amendments to

introductory text and

section 2 to strengthen

policy intent.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Text amended

to reflect

comment.


41



Amendments

made

Bassetlaw District

Council Section 19

Reference to aspirational

policy – advise it is moved

to project list.

yes

Identification of

aspirational

clarified but

kept in Plan as

important to

community.

Highways

England General

Scale of development

proposed means no

significant impact on

operation of A1.

NA

Historic England General

NPPG requires NPs to

provide sufficient

information on heritage

assets to guide planning

decisions and need to

ensure liaison with NCC re

historic environment

record and BDC’s

conservation officer.

No

Liaison with

conservation

officer and NCC

was undertaken

and sufficient

information on

heritage assets

provided.

Severn Trent No specific comment to

make NA

Coal Authority No specific comment to

make NA

Environment

Agency

Supports delivery of the

vision and objectives NA

National Grid

No gas or electricity

transmissions in the plan

area. Importance of

consulting re NP

development where they

have infrastructure.

NA

Natural England Welcomes the production

of the SEA screening report NA


42



Amendments

made

and confirms no SEA

required.

Other comments

confirming SEA screening

conclusion.

Anglian Water NP3 and 4

No objection to site

allocation but note the

improvements to existing

water supply network are

expected to be required to

enable the development to

proceed.

NA

Sport England

NPs need to use local

authorities Play Pitch

Strategy

NA

The community

identified the

need for a

MUGA in the

plan already

West Stockwith

PC No specific comments

Nottinghamshire

County Council Waste

Consider reference to

waste management issues

Reading all developments

as well as local waste

management sites to

ensure sustainable design

of future developments.

Yes

Information

added in

section 4 of the

NP


43



Amendments

made

Nottinghamshire

County Council

Health

Policies should play a vital

role in insuring health and

well-being of the

population.

Yes

Section 18

added to

include

reference to

NCCs health

and well-being

initiatives.

Nottinghamshire

County Council Minerals

The whole neighbourhood

plan area is covered by a

mineral safeguarding and

consultation area for sand

and gravel. The Minerals

Local Submission Draft

2016 sets out a policy

concerning these areas

DM13.

Yes

Information

added in

section 4 of the

NP to show how

the NP fits with

other policies

and in the

narrative for

NP5.

Nottinghamshire

County Council

Minerals

Two sites are allocated for

future sand and gravel in

the Minerals Local Plan.

Botany Bay lies partly in the

Parish and Barnby Moor

abuts the boundary.

Yes

Ref to both sites

added in

Section 4.

Nottinghamshire

County Council

Strategic

highways

Projects 4 and 6 cannot be

implemented by the PC but

welcomes further

discussion with PC about

appropriate improvements.

Yes

Text amended

to reflect

comment.

Nottinghamshire

County Council

Public

Transport

Additional information

provided on the current

bus service.

Yes

Information

added at

section 7G.

Nottinghamshire

County Council

Public

Transport

Use of CIL to fund public

transport improvements

and role of community

transport.

No

Emphasis on

the use of CIL to

improve bus

stops etc. was

not seen as a


44



Amendments

made

priority to have

in the NP.

Nottinghamshire

County Council Landscape

Identification of key views

would strengthen

community objective 3.

No

Acknowledged

that this would

be a useful

addition but

also considered.

Requirement to

submit NP

urgently to

secure site

allocations.

Nottinghamshire

County Council Landscape

Need to include ref to

landscape action for ILPZ10

in NP 1.

Yes Added at

NP1(3) a.

Comments from Residents

Below is a summary of the comments from residents made at the public meeting or via e-mail

following consultation from BDC. Where the respondent is also a landowner and/or parish

councillor this is stated.

Consultee Section of Plan Comments Amendments Amendments

made

Resident General Very sensible

design. NA

Resident Section 15

Support given for

all three sites and

concerns raised

regarding other

sites coming

forward in the

future.

NA


45


made

Resident Section 15

Agreement with

the three

preferred sites.

NA

Resident Section 14

Support for policy

outlining a

mixture of

development to

help sustain local

amenities.

NA

Resident General

Positive

comments

regarding the

choice of sites

and all elements

of the Plan.

NA

Resident General

Queries on 30

Town Street and

the impact that

the

Neighbourhood

Plan will have on

the application.

NA

Resident and Land

Owner A

General

Support the Plan’s

aims and

objectives,

particularly those

seeking to secure

a mix of housing

to meet local

needs of the

community and to

ring-fence

possible monies

from

development.

NA


46


made

Resident General

Support for the

exclusion of sites

not chosen to be

brought forward

in the plan.

NA

Resident and Land

Owner A

Site Allocation

Site 9 (which we

own) comprises

the only

undeveloped area

of land with the

existing built-up

area, but appears

to have been

entirely

overlooked in

favour of

extending the

village to the

north and the

south and wholly

unnecessarily

encroaching into

the open

countryside.

All 3 sites are part

of open

countryside and

play an important

role in

safeguarding the

setting of the

village.

Do not consider

the sites have

been fairly

assessed.

No. site 9 was

included as part

of the community

consultation for

the sites – it was

not supported by

the community

see table on page

25 showing

summary of

feedback.

The sites were

assessed by BDC

following a

recognised and

robust site

assessment

process.


47


made

Resident and Land

Owner B

Land south of

Lound Low Road

My clients repeat

support for the

development of

this land as part

of the NP

Consultation

process.

Noted

Land Owner

Representative

for Land Owner B

Land south of Lound Low Road

I note comments

regarding the site

being at the

entrance to the

village and the

consequent

importance of

design issues of

any development.

The point is taken

on board as a

principle to be

looked at in detail

at the appropriate

stage. However,

any implication

that this should

be considered at

this stage I would

regard as

premature.

Noted

Documents

Consultation Statement - Bassetlaw District Council elections€¦ · Council. A total of 15 residents attended this initial forum contact details were taken by Simon Bell and an