Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Question 19 - Infrastructure Requirements at Hockley Heath
Hockley Heath will require protection from excessive development that may impact upon the character and attractiveness of the village; and the services it provides. Where development is provided, the following issues will need to be addressed:
School Parking – Congestion around school pick up and drop off times currently occurs in School Road.
Community Infrastructure Levy – Presently the parish council will directly receive 15% of the levy collected in the area. This will increase to 25% once any Neighbourhood Plans are adopted. This will provide a significant source of funding that can be used to take forward appropriate projects that the community have identified as priorities. This can include simple relatively low cost actions (e.g. further traffic regulation orders) through to more substantial projects. It will be for the parish council to decide how this 'local' element of the CIL receipts is to be spent and there is potential for partnership working to maximise the use of monies from this source.
(80) 19 Do you agree with the infrastructure requirements identified for Hockley Heath, if not why not; or do you believe there are any other matters that should be included?
Question 20 - Site 25 - School Road
Site 25 - Land South of School Road
The site proposed for development off School Road is considered to perform well in that it is a limited and proportionate expansion adding some 100 or so dwellings (about a 12% increase in the size of the settlement). It would use a strong and defensible boundary (the canal) to limit the extent of development. The development may also allow the congestion issues in the vicinity of the school to be addressed if, through careful design of the site frontage and access, alternative drop off/pick up arrangements for the school can be provided.
The site sits in a Green Belt parcel that extends around the western side of the village and is judged, through the Green Belt Assessment as a lower performing area.
Given the change that will be required to the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the above site, it is considered that the existing ribbon development on the north side of the road that has Green Belt 'washed over' it should be reviewed. Given the built development that exists, and that it is largely continuous without significant gaps, it appears logical for this run of development to be removed from the Green Belt.
In addition to the site south of School Road that would then fall within the settlement boundary, if the Green Belt boundary were amended as described above, there are also two smaller sites that may be considered appropriate for development as they would then also be within the settlement boundary. These are as follows (using the call for site references and the SHELAA for potential indicative capacity):
49 Land adjacent to 84 School Road (capacity 21)
328 land at and to the rear of 84, 86 & 90 School Road (capacity 30)
(86) 20 Do you believe that Site 25 land south of School Road should be included as allocated site, if not why not? Do you have any comments on the draft concept masterplan for the site?
Question 21 - Green Belt Changes
(73) 21. Do you have any comments to make on potential changes to the Green Belt boundary north of School Road that would result in the removal of the 'washed over' Green Belt from this ribbon of development?