Charfield Neighbourhood Plan meeting
Memorial Hall 12th November 2018 at 7:30pm
- Mark and Susie Smyth Roberts, Ruth Balloch, David Lines, John O’Neill, Bev Burley, John Gregory, Maurice Buchanan and Marcus Whawell.
- Mark Rosher, Laurence Parsons, Steve and Judy Drinkwater, Ruth Buchanan
JO gave an overview of the Charfield excl Developers Liaison Meeting that had been held since the last CNP meeting. Thai included the fact that the retail outlet on the current MJ Fews site is potentially to be a Co-Op style store with some parking. Access is an issue and the plans to demolish the old brick bank building were declined, so this will stay.
The station car park would still be at the MJ Fews site and as such it may involve a compulsory purchase to make land available. There was mention that an overflow could be on the Hill House Farm site and SSR was concerned about the amount of traffic on Station Road which JO said had been raised consistently with the developers and planners.
JG recapped to explain that the call for sites was the key reason that Charfield was made a Strategic Development Location (SDL) as it made life easy for South Glos Council (SGC) Planners because there was one land owner to negotiate with rather than many smaller sites and regardless of whether it was suitable or not, the landowners could see the ££££ signs.
MSR explained that he had been researching the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and said they had a huge amount of useful information to battle the developers. Fighting For Charfield have been involved with Leslie since Laurence and Marcus attended a Thornbury TRAPP’D event in 2016, as has JO and it was agreed that we should work closer with CPRE.
MB commented upon the ratified Neighbourhood Plan from Cheddar, where they talk about a realistic growth figure and not what SGC feel is viable. This could be considered for our NP.
MSR was concerned about drainage and sewerage in light of the new housing coming to Charfield especially as previous plans had not engaged with Wessex Water on capacity. Again this should be considered in the CNP.
We then had a series of questions around what could be included in the CNP
Could we challenge the 35% affordable housing to make it more?
Could we stipulate that retirement housing is included?
Could we put in clauses that make all Development fit in with the ability for children to walk to the new primary school?
MW then gave an overview of the 3 mini sites within the CEG development using the historic map on the wall in the main hall. This also covered off the sensitive buffer/wildlife corridor of at least 15 metres at the rear of all houses touching the CEG development. Bloor have not been present at these meetings and as such they have not matched that commitment.
SSR discussed the access issues from the whole site via one junction onto Wotton Road and the likely traffic issues this will cause. Also what will Station Road and LBL be like if the shop opens and people use the underpass to get around the likely traffic issues.
In the NP for Bradwell they discussed the percentage of age groups and how this created a neighbourhood. We then discussed how this could help to create a community where retired residents live next to families and people look out for each other.
JG said that Lydney’s NP only had a specific housing policy relating to Retirement homes, rather than starter etc. Perhaps we should consider having multiple types.
RB asked if we could use the previous CNP data outcomes on the ratios of ages etc to support our new NP.
We then all discussed what we wanted to say
- Affordable housing to be mixed in with other housing rather than separate
- Should we stipulate heights/storeys to stop developers using need for retirement or starter homes as an excuse to built 3 storey ugly blocks.
- JG explained that the Dursley NP was very woolly when it came to the mix of housing and may not end up giving them what they want. Note we need to be more specific.
- MSR suggested we need to consider putting in comments re parking and width of roads to ensure access for emergency vehicles and also taking into account the increase in car ownership now and in the future.
- Suggestions were made to include specific comments re green spaces/pathways/cycle paths to connect the village to the existing/new village as well as being aesthetically pleasing
- Some NPs just say the plan should be in line with the NPPF but should the Charfield plan be more specific. Ie more integrated communities
- St Agnes in Cornwall has a stipulation that to buy a second home you must have a link to the area. This shows what can be included and how we can think outside the box
- We all agreed that we did not want Charfield to be a commuter village and therefore having a mix of housing for different types of residents could mean retired residents would be in more during the day rather than deserted commuter roads. Families could then look out for retired neighbours etc. Like it used to be!
Employment – we discussed how we could keep people in the village for working and the idea of available workspaces/hubs was discussed at length.
MSR spoke about the fact that Bristol is going to be a pilot for 5G Internet technology and could we promote Charfield as a suitable rural location to be ahead of the curve and offer super fact internet without the need for cables.
As time had raced on we agreed to consider coming up with an overarching vision for Charfield to discuss at the next meeting
Next meeting is Monday 10th December at 7:30pm.