Comments

 

Cottesmore Neighbourhood Plan

 

 

Report of Survey

 

July 2014
Cottesmore Neighbourhood Plan Survey

Introduction

The object of the survey was to seek the views of residents on those issues which are important to them and how they should be considered within the Neighbourhood Plan. The planning group discussed a wide range of topics, including those which other villages had considered as part of their own plans, as well as those specific to Cottesmore such as Kendrew Barracks.

Inevitably compromises have had to be made within practical cost and manpower considerations. One such issue was whether the questionnaire should be for each  person - (16+), or one per household. The former would have doubled the cost of printing and created an enormous task of inputting data and analysis. In addition to specific answers provided to the questionnaire, over 10,000 words of comment were made by 160 households. A specific questionnaire for younger residents was considered but abandoned in favour of feedback from them during the consultation process.

After careful consideration a number of questions examined initially by the group were discarded in order to restrain the questionnaire to a reasonable length, within the premise that  all such issues raised by residents would be introduced at a later date.

Methodology

Over 60 questionnaires were collected during two open days and some 400 delivered to and collected from each household in the village with a further 100 sent to Kendrew Barracks for their input.

A total of 300 completed questionnaires were retrieved  - representing a response rate of 66% excluding Kendrew . This is an extremely good result comparing favourably with the  rates achieved by similar villages. Results were entered into a spread sheet covering some 35,000 cells together with a large number of comments (10,000 words) from 160 households - all of which have been recorded with summaries contained in the following sections. All the original forms will be archived.

The planning group would like  to thank all those who completed the questionnaire and in particular for the additional comments which have been made.

Your answers will make a vital contribution to the development of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Housing

This section covered questions on whether village boundaries should be extended to accommodate additional development and, assuming this, what kind of houses should be built and of what materials.

The question associated with continuing the current “infill” policy  or extending the village boundary drew broadly similar responses, with the “infill” question answered by 254 respondents with 82% in favour of continuing the policy and of the 217 who responded to the extended boundary question 67% were in favour of  maintaining the existing boundary.

Respondents who suggested potential locations for future development or indicated preferences on the maps, highlighted the  following areas:

Rogues Lane –  between the graveyard and Kendrew Barracks,  or on the land between Harrier Close and Westland Road, or both (although there was also a comment against any future building on Rogues Lane).

Market Overton Road - near to the school (less traffic, children able to walk to school,  close to shops).

Burley Road – towards the public waste site.

Fields to the rear of Main Street – bounded by The Spinney,  Clatterpot/Mill Lane and Market Overton Road (Figure 1).

Fields immediately behind Main Street bounded by The spinney and Clatterpot Lane

(Figure 2).

Of the 266 people who responded to the  question of extending the existing boundary area, 90% were opposed to boundary changes.

The question about the type of houses that should be built was answered by between 196* and 226 respondents and their answers are summarised below

67% (196 people responded} were against the building of four or five bedroom houses.

83% (216 people responded) were in favour of three bedroom houses.

73% (226 people responded) were in favour of one or two bedroom starter homes.

77% (193* people responded) were against blocks of one or two bedroom apartments.

75% (224 people responded) were in favour of retirement living apartments.

* what is correct 196 or 193?

Several respondents added comments about the need for more bungalows.

Respondents had a distinct preference for any future construction in the conservation area to be in keeping with the old elements of the village – i.e. stone and slate tiles with 89% of the 238 respondents supporting this proposition. When specifically asked, only 45% of the 194 respondents supported the use of brick and concrete tiles. 76% of 227 respondents thought that whatever materials use they should be chosen to help conserve energy.

94% of the 283 people responding to the question of building heights, were opposed to any building exceeding two storeys.

Similar unanimity was present on the final question about housing density - 97% of the 282 respondents were in favour of a stipulated density ensuring that the village retained its appearance and character. One person however, commented that with the high cost of land, this was  unrealistic.

Environment & Facilities

This subject produced more responses and greater comment than the total of all other categories – reflecting a major aspect of residents’ concerns and aspirations.

Maintaining the traditional character of the village was considered to be most important by 239 out of the 300 responses, whilst maintaining and improving the condition of kerbs, pavements and footpaths. Nearly half the respondents said there were too many signs – some of which restricted drivers’ vision and that existing speed restriction signs should be improved and reinforced. Additional warning signs for Horse and Riders and Children should be erected. Dog waste disposal signs were considered to be too large and out of keeping.

Respondents considered village facilities could be improved by updating the village hall 75% and over two thirds said a doctor’s surgery would be welcome – even on a part-time basis. 151 respondents suggested an allotment (with water supply) although only 61 would actually use it.

Open spaces are considered important to 66% of respondents to this question.

It was considered that the area at the Pastures could be improved by conversion into a public park with flower beds, seating, small children’s playground and an area devoted to a wild flower meadow 58%.

Interest was shown in the land by the community centre and tennis courts for use a bowling green, sensory garden and nature park for the elderly 66%.

It was suggested that as there are few attractions for older children, a bmx/skateboard/ assault course park would be desirable but with some reservations due to it’s proximity to Gainsborough Court.

A large majority of respondents 83% considered  new housing developments should be built with open space for recreation. This was felt most strongly in comments from residents of Harrier Close where there is neither play area nor other recreational space.

Over 75% of respondents wanted a significant increase in access to open countryside. It was suggested existing paths required improvement and landowners should be asked to allow rights of way across farmland surrounding the village. Several routes were suggested. It was also suggested some roads should have footpaths laid - in particular Market Overton Road, Mill Lane and Exton Lane.

196 respondents suggested more facilities could be available to older residents such as regular drop ins at the social club or pub. Theatre, cinema or concert outings – with assisted transport, were equally well supported and  other “club” activities were suggested.

Use of facilities at the army base being extended to village residents attracted suggestions and support to encourage integration, including army representatives giving talks to  existing village clubs.

There was general consensus that existing facilities do not require much alteration although there was considered to be some room for improvement and support for introduction of further retail outlets such as a coffee shop and hairdresser.

Transport and Road Safety

Of the overall 300 responses, some 260 related to questions on transport, traffic and road safety.  From the range and thoroughness of these it is clear the impact – particularly of traffic in the village is significant. However, as is usual with this topic, the range of suggested solutions to perceived problems vary considerably – in some cases being in direct conflict with each other.

It is also clear the subject matter – namely traffic speed, parking, road safety/junction improvement and improvements to public transport, have identified the mains issues.

Turning first to speed limits: Over two thirds of respondents do not favour lowering the speed limit further or widening road widths. There is more equal support for making kerbs clearer and there are a number of specific suggestions on road signage – suggestion the need to move   the control signs further  away from the village so that traffic is encouraged to slow down earlier. Similar approaches were suggested in relation to the 20mph limits signs to be moved further from the school entrance. There are also calls for greater/better enforcement of existing speed limits and a number of respondents favoured greater use of electronic vehicle messaging as a greater deterrent. Speed humps or tables had little support  with 56% against– with some specific rejections as   to workability.

Nearly 80% of those who responded, favoured change to the signage priority to  the A1north  from Oakham,  with a limit of heavy goods vehicles through the village. However, the practicality of this was questioned, given the use of sat-navs by most HGV drivers .  Concern was expressed, directing traffic through other villages on the A606 and it  was acknowledged some of the heavy traffic was supporting local industry and quarries along the route of the B668 important to the local economy.

Parking within the village was found to be a somewhat emotive issue and there was acceptance that it needs to be better organised although there were mixed views as to whether there should be more of it. A parking bay on the chip shop side of the road gained considerable favour with virtually the same proportion – 70%, wishing to see clearer parking outside The Sun Inn.

There was considerable support for improved signage to the Village Hall car park

81% although mention was made that this was in support of the Village Hall and the Sun overflow    rather than a public car park .  Also identified was the need to address parking on Mill Lane near to the garage, which some considered to be a road safety issue at certain times. Nearly 66% of respondents favoured more action against irresponsible parking in the village. Only 35% supported the idea of preventative posts along the pavements.

Underpinning many comments throughout the transport section were concerns on road safety issues. As well as speeding and parking, the questionnaire posed specific questions relating to junctions in parts of the village. The responses showed less consistency here – in part reflecting people’s differing  experiences, depending on where they lived. Over two thirds of respondents supported the need to improve sight lines at Market Overton/Ashwell Road junctions. Specific solutions varied but a number of respondents suggested creating a one-way junction (i.e. roundabout). There was less support for proposals to change priority at the Toll Bar/Exton Road junction with over 60% in favour of no change. There was 60% support for rumble strips along Rogues Lane – before Westland Drive, to slow traffic prior to reaching the B668. There was also (as noted previously) support for moving the traffic signs further out particularly on the Oakham and Greetham Roads to slow traffic earlier when approaching the village.

The question relating to other junctions drew very little response only 3% responded

Suggesting the survey had correctly identified the major junction issues for the parish. There was however concern expressed about the need for a safer pedestrian route particularly for school children, from Barrow into Cottesmore along the Market Overton Road - where no footpath exists. There was also a call for pedestrian crossings in the centre of the village and from Harrier close across Rogues Lane linking with the existing  footpath.

There was a suggestion  that the main Kendrew Barracks entrance be changed to Thistleton Road and some limited support for improvement (roundabout) to improve sight lines at Mill Lane/Main Street junction, also for improvements to the Rogues Lane/Main Street junction. One respondent suggest a left-turn slip road. Several respondents emphasised the need for enhanced cycle tracks – particularly next to the village hall/sports field and along Exton Road.

Economy

There were 250 responses to questions relating to the  economy. Within this section the most frequent being the need for a trade directory, with 80% of respondents in favour. One suggestion was that an online directory  would be particularly useful – possibly incorporating it with The Link.   

Equally responded was the question on the possibility of encouraging a guest house or B&B – with 84% of those who answered the question in favour, 205. There were comments that off-street parking should be available. Responses were equally divided for/against the principle of allowing change of use from residential  to retail. There was one suggestion for a greengrocer.

On the question of introducing either light industrial units or small office units a firm majority 68% were against although where in favour, suggested locations were near the Barracks down rogues Lane, on the Market Overton Road near the school, near the refuse station on the Burley Road or the old Greetham Garden Centre. In general support was lukewarm. Other suggestions included multiple use of existing businesses such as an internet café.

One of the most interesting facts to emerge was the number of households containing self-employed persons. Out of the 300 overall replies there were 58 which, if shown as a proportion of total households (excluding the Barracks) would amount to 87 self-employed people in the village. This coupled with 115 jobs identified in the village of which nearly 50% were held by villagers, amounted to about 140 jobs in the village filled  by residents.

Energy

Three basic issues were proposed: help in saving energy costs; use of photoelectric cells to generate energy and use of wind turbines.

On saving energy costs,  of those who answered the question, 240, there was strong support for the need to improve information on the subject – 80%, but  slightly less - 67% in favour of helping households change suppliers. Their was also strong support – 61%, in favour of community buying schemes although it was pointed out that such a scheme  existed for the purchase of oil.

Nearly all the comments in this section related to solar panels and wind turbines.

On the question of changing restrictions of use to accommodate solar panels within  the conservation area, 56% of respondents (250) were against any changes but 43% were in favour. However the majority of comments related to whether they would be visible form Main Street, which they were against. Some expressed preference for them to be at ground level whilst others were not  concerned. There was one suggestion that government should provide a grant to each household for two panels.

Answers to wind turbine questions provided a similar split with 60% against and 40% in favour, from a total of 258 answers on this subject. General consensus was that they should be out of sight of the village other than one suggestion for the   football pitch. The most common suggestion was somewhere at the barracks or on Market Overton Road with one suggestion close to the refuse station on the rise on the Ashwell Road.

In this section there was also a comment that we should be aware of fracking and possible use of CHP (combined heat and power).