| Id |
Comment |
Source |
| 50 |
Value of property will decrease.
Volume of traffic & with another road coming out in Middleway - horrendous + so near the school.
Down this end of the village we often have sewerage problems especially with heavy rain & when the springs are up. The school field floods worse since the so called "COUNTRY STYLE COTTAGES" were built (*) & at such times the school are very pleased to use the football field.
* We would like to have a view from the back of our houses - the forest and fields! as our front view has been spoilt - used to see the River and Park - hence the name of our houses.
ALSO WOULD HATE TO SEE ANOTHER VILLAGE SPOILT LIKE CHILBOLTON/WHERWEL & MANY OTHERS
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 49 |
No one wishes to see Longparish with large developments - but please persevere with some affordable housing.
My generation is in its 60s -born and bred in Longparish to old village families most of us had to leave when we married in the 60s because there just weren't any houses available.
We cared about our village and still do even if at a distance, (Some of us still meet from time to time), don't let this generation have to move away from the place they love because they cannot afford to stay.
|
Letter or email |
| 52 |
Longparish Affordable Housing and Associated Residential Enabling Development
1) The original survey by CAH was sent out in July/August holiday period 2005. Many people I have spoken to have no recollection of seeing or completing the form.
2) Demand for affordable housing may change once the development at Picket 20 is carried out only a couple of miles away. Should we not wait to see the effects of this before we take the dramatic act of the suggested development in Longparish.
3) There is no indication of where the people wanting affordable homes or other new houses will work. Presumably they will commute which means more traffic problems in the village. Should we not be thinking more about people being able to live closer to their employment, rather than having to undertake longer journeys to work.
4) Of those who have said they would like an affordable house in the village, how many are the parents hoping their children will be able to stay nearby. However many children will not be able to, not through lack of housing but because their jobs, marriage or wanting to be closer to other facilities take them elsewhere, especially if they do not have private transport.
5) The criteria for choosing a suitable site is not clear. Are we limited to sites where land owners are prepared to co-operate, if so this may not produce the best site for the village. Should we not have a list of best of preferred sites?
6) The exhibition referred to a second phase. It is assumed that this will be adjacent or part of an extension of phase 1? If so the infrastructure will have to be such at the initial stage to take further development. This will make a phase 2 almost inevitable to justify the cost.
7) The new development will inevitably create more traffic in the village. What study has been done to show what effect this might have.
8) The working party for this proposal seems very biased and determined to drive the proposal through come what may. There should be a balanced view put forward showing the pros and the cons of such a development.
9) Will a development as proposed mean urbanization of the village with street lights, pavements etc etc?
10) Could TVBC insist on a development taking more houses than may be proposed as happened in Wallop.
11) Middleton (the football pitch) seems to be favoured but the site is tucked away and will not help 'link' the village. If the copse is included many trees will need to be felled. No alternative site has been suggested for a football pitch.
12) What say will 'the village' have in the selection of tenants for affordable housing? ie will it be decided by TVBC or the housing association alone without any input from village representation.
|
Letter or email |
| 44 |
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Marsden [mailto:nickmarsden@aol.com]
Sent: 05 December 2006 14:10
To: mike@pewterrenaissance.co.uk
Cc: chris@dewbury.com
Subject: Comments on the Affordable Housing initiative
Mike
Following the exhibition at the Village Hall recently, I thought it appropriate to put my thoughts on paper and pass them onto yourself and the Housing committee as requested. I suspect this will be a long document and I trust you can manage to at least to skim read it to understand how I reached my conclusions.
I would state at the outset that I cannot support the affordable housing proposal in its present form. I will outline my reasons below. In summary, I do not support building on green belt land for what ever reason. In addition whilst it would be desirable to provide low cost housing within the village I do not believe it is an absolute necessity – certainly not sufficient to justify changing the planning regime
One of the key conclusions from the Village Plan was the need to protect and maintain the Beauty of the Village Environment - I fail to see how building on Green belt and potentially within the Conservation area achieves this objective. There are nearby alternative sources of affordable housing within comfortable travelling distance of the village for those who wish to live close to friends and relatives.
I do feel that the most immediate issue to be faced is how we can determine whether the present proposal should be pursued or not. I do believe this issue is urgent since the debate is getting more and more emotional and lasting damage to relationships in the village could result if we do resolve the way forward speedily.
Since the November Parish Council meeting I have given the matter considerable thought. There has been much talk about the facts in the matter supporting each side of the argument. In truth there are very few hard facts concerning this issue and therefore everybody is forming their opinion on emotion rather than logic. There needs to be a tolerance of each other’s point of view rather than the playground – “you throw stones (or “facts”) and then I throw stones back” - approach that has been seen over the past few weeks.
This whole issue started with the Village Plan and the question concerning Affordable Housing. It has to be said that the specific question was worded in such a fashion as to make it difficult to answer no. If the question was posed today along the lines of would you be in favour of Affordable Housing if it meant building on Green Field sites I am sure the answer would be somewhat different.
I have had considerable experience of surveys – having been involved in sales and marketing over a number of years and one of last positions in IBM was European Director of Marketing. I have used surveys as an initial information gathering mechanisms in order to structure product/service have maximum chance of success in the marketplace. In my experience, it is very difficult to get a good understanding of a complex problem from one general survey question.
In my view that the Plan questions did not establish either support in the Village as a whole for Affordable Housing or the committed need for Affordable Housing within the Village population. You cannot draw specific conclusions from such broad unspecified questions.
The follow on Housing Survey conducted on behalf of TVBC was a grave disappointment. Instead of providing additional information in order to develop an informed opinion its questions were no more detailed that those of the Plan. The way the survey was conducted also cast doubts on any of its conclusions – circulated in August in a plain brown envelope etc. In my view as a marketing survey it left a lot to be desired and I would not have tolerated such a sloppy and ineffective piece of work in my professional capacity.
And now to the present proposal, I accept that the planning regime is changing that could allow a green field development but this does not mean we have to take the advantage simply to meet the perceived need for Affordable Housing within the village. I cannot see how either the Village Plan or the Housing survey provides a mandate for such an action.
I would make the following points in no particular order or importance
· I believe there significant opposition to the proposals within certain sections in the village. Given that ESN06 requires overwhelming village support surely it is inappropriate to take the proposal forward in its present form. The claimed 80% support from the Village Plan is irrelevant given that this is a specific proposal rather than a generalised “no-brainer” question.
· Even now I am not convinced that a committed need for Affordable Housing has been established i.e. have those who expressed an interest in affordable housing been asked such questions as - if we were to provide affordable housing would you be prepared to pay up to £xxx/month for such accommodation. -would you be prepared to sign a contract before the housing is built. The 26 names on the housing registry have expressed an interest not a commitment. In any case, it is my understanding the TVBC Housing scoring system would still apply so although some weighting would be given the needs of local people there is no guarantee that they will be able to live in the proposed housing within the village
· Part of the argument for affordable housing is that it would assist in sustaining Village life in Longparish. I am sorry but I find this a spurious argument. The continuing life in the village depends on the whole number of market dependent factors that cannot be managed and controlled by anyone – certainly not the Parish Council. There is no evidence that village life is declining in any fashion. The school is full, the pubs are thriving and a very personal subjective view is the social life in the Village is the best it has been since my arrival 14 years ago. The only problem area is the viability of the shop. The additional village population generated by your proposed development would not affect whether the shop continues - there are far greater market factors at work that will determine the future of local shops/Post Offices.
In conclusion as a point of principle I do not support green site development. There is nothing in the information and opinions that have been presented at the Exhibitions and conversations before and after that would justify my changing this position.
Nick
Tel 720858
|
Letter or email |
| 48 |
2 Gladstone Terrace
Sugar Lane
Longparish
SP11 6PP
Tel: 720086
Email: robin@thesmallwoods.com
4th December 2006
Dear Mike and Housing Group
Re. Proposal for mixed-housing development in Longparish
You have expressed a keen interest to hear from all villagers regarding the proposed mixed-housing development in the village, so here are our personal thoughts and feelings.
We moved to Longparish exactly 2 years ago so are therefore newcomers. We chose to move to the village because of the peace and quiet, beautiful open spaces, relative low density of housing and lots of fresh clean air. Before the removal men had even left, different neighbours had given us a bottle of wine, a bunch of flowers, a cake and an invitation to a Christmas party. Once settled, we were delighted to discover the thriving community spirit, many friendly young families and a wealth of activities and groups open to all. Indeed since we’ve been here, we’ve met several new young couples and families which are bringing further fresh blood and life to the village.
On reading the Longparish Parish Plan, it is clear that our thoughts and feelings are shared by many. Peoples’ feedback included the “need to protect and maintain the good things”. Also to “protect and maintain the beauty of the village environment”, specifically “the rural characteristics; the lack of environmental pollution; the open spaces; a mixed population with all ages groups represented; and the very low levels of crime.” Thankfully we were also told that “the existing open areas in the village are important open spaces where development will not be allowed.”
We went on to read the large section of the Parish Plan referring to the apparent need for more affordable housing. It is not a local problem - there is clearly a national need for property development due to the ever increasing number of separated families, and the massive influx of residents from other European countries.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that house prices in Longparish are extremely high. And yes, people have modernised and extended smaller properties to enable their growing families to remain in this beautiful village, thereby removing some of the smallest and more affordable homes from the property ladder.
We do agree that people who have deep roots within the village – maybe from families who have lived in and given to the village for generations – are being forced to leave the village by the housing market. Along with many others, we supported, and still do, the notion of providing some affordable housing to enable these people to reside within the village should they wish. We are very fortunate to be able to enjoy living in the village and that shouldn’t be at the expense of families who have deep roots within the village.
The Parish Plan says that it seeks “to gain support for a small mixed housing development”. In our minds we imagined “small” to mean perhaps 8 or 10 homes split over several locations. This would have minimal negative impact on the village and the new residents would be more likely to integrate smoothly with other villagers.
For many months we heard nothing more on the subject of housing in Longparish.
Then, several weeks ago, there was a flood of details about your proposal, in terms of size, nature and location. From our point of view the scale of your current proposal is a massive leap from the initial small mixed housing development (probably largely supported) principles set out in the Parish Plan.
Clearly a lot of research, planning and investigative work had gone on behind the scenes without any further consultation with the village. Having now had the opportunity to read all of your literature, and visit the exhibition, we feel:
a) some of your reasons for pursuing your plans are flawed;
b) you don’t appear to have considered or pointed out any of the negative impacts that such a development would have on our village; and
c) you appear not to have put any serious effort into searching for alternative solutions which could preserve our open spaces.
Looking back, it should not surprise you that the apparent secretive nature and the lack of transparency of your planning has caused a great deal of upset. Emotions have consequently run very high.
As already mentioned, we are in agreement with the underlying principle of providing some affordable housing for people who have roots within the village but who can no longer afford to live here. However,
· The criteria and definition of these roots needs to be discussed within the village, and clarified.
· We consider it questionable whether or not the occupants of a further 36 homes will make or break the sustainability of the village. The school and pubs are already doing well. The Church has its own problems, but they are not to do with the population levels of the village. The shop may not be thriving, but this has got far more to do with the increasing number of supermarkets and the methods in which society now shops, than a small drop in village population. Indeed, the building of North Acre did not sustain other shops which were originally present in the village.
· The village proportion of people aged 16-29 may well be below the Hampshire average, but is it below the Hampshire village average? Generally speaking, the government has been encouraging more and more young people to further their education at colleges or universities. This usually takes people away from their birth homes to study, grow up, develop a career and meet a spouse etc. A rural lifestyle is far more suited to people who are settling down, having families and growing older together and less so to those aged 17 to 25.
· It seems wrong that in order to have a few affordable home within the village we have to accept additional ‘open to market’ homes (which we don’t need) eating into our valuable space. We also think it wrong that bribery is being used to try to win us over in terms of village improvements.
· Much of the proposal goes against numerous principles set out in the Parish Plan.
· Your view of a village at risk of dying does not ring true with us. Indeed, we have not come across a community with so many 4-children families!
· You say “This is a major project. It will only go ahead if the village supports it”, but there does not seem to be any clear statement on how the Housing Group is going to assess the village’s support in a scientific fashion.
Here are some of the negative consequences which we feel such a housing estate would have on our village
1. The loss of one or more green-field sites
The idea of demolishing our playing field, which is used regularly by many people, and/or a beautiful open field seems very sad.
Given the numerous comments in the Parish Plan about the need to protect what we have, a lot of people will clearly be upset at losing our green open spaces. To quote, “Longparish is a rural village and the rural characteristics should not be damaged or the village made more urban.”
2. The number and density of homes
We acknowledge that you are proposing an initial phase of 18 homes, but we really do believe that the full picture must be considered at this stage, i.e. 36 homes. Certainly relative to the size of, say, Andover, 36 additional homes would be considered a very small development, but we really don’t agree that a development which will increase the size of Longparish by nearly 12% (albeit in 2 phases) can, in any way, be considered small. The density of housing which you are proposing is completely out of keeping with the rest of the village (possibly even with North Acre). We don’t think that it would encourage natural and solid integration within the village.
3. The concentration of additional environmental pollution
There would be the obvious increases in light (from street and home lighting) and noise pollution which would be concentrated in the small geographical area. Again to quote the Parish Plan, “suburban solutions like streetlights are not in keeping with the rural character of the village.”
4. The increase in traffic
36 homes could easily give rise to around 50-70 additional cars in the village, notwithstanding all the extra delivery vehicles. With this comes volume of traffic, pollution, and potentially speed. We do not want all the extra ‘infrastructure’ that will be necessary to support these extra vehicles.
We are sorry that this letter must be coming across as very negative. Unfortunately it expresses the way we have been left feeling. We are very concerned that this debate seriously risks ruining the amazing community spirit which currently exists, or even splitting the village altogether. We hope that we can move forwards by starting to work together as a village. We would be pleased to discuss our views with you, and of course we look forward to the open public forum in the new year.
And what now? In our view, a good way forward might be as follows:
· The Housing Group should reflect on where we are now and revisit the whole process in a more balanced and open way. We feel that you should examine Barton Stacey’s process for developing affordable housing. They achieved this with high levels of support from villagers.
· Repeat the housing survey with far more detailed and appropriate questions with transparency of all the facts. For example if someone is in favour of a small amount of affordable housing, what number of homes would they consider acceptable?
· Ask the entire village to rack their brains for alternatives to new build which will satisfy the need without all of the negative impacts on the village. Then considerable energy needs to go into investigating all the suggested options.
· If the opinions of villagers really do count, once clear proposals are on the table a referendum ought to take place – yes or no. We feel that you and the village must be absolutely sure that we wish to go ahead with any housing development as it will be impossible to remove it in the future if it doesn’t solve the problem.
We are sorry to say that we cannot support your current proposal. We do, however, hope that credible alternatives become apparent because, given that around 3000-3500 new homes are going to be built within just a few miles of our village (many of which will be affordable homes), we find it impossible to agree that the current needs for affordable housing in the village outweighs the detrimental effects which we consider your proposal will have on our environment.
We do hope you consider our thoughts and feelings carefully, and would of course be happy to discuss them further with you if you wish. Either way, please consider this an open letter.
Yours sincerely
Robin & Nicky Smallwood
|
Letter or email |
| 43 |
5 The Withies
Longparish
Andover
SP11 6PD
Dear Mike (and housing group),
Passions around the village are running high at present and I am increasingly concerned that this is in danger of doing great damage to village life. I am aware that divisions like this in small villages can take many years to be forgotten.
I am sure that you agree that this is not constructive, is detrimental to the community and should be avoided at all costs.
There has been much written on both sides of the debate to date. I wanted to write to the housing group to set out my personal thoughts and opinions more specifically. I would be happy to have the opportunity to discuss these with you.
From a personal perspective I am extremely sympathetic to those that have been a part of the village for many years and now cannot afford to be. I am not against the idea of affordable housing, or in principle the aims and objectives of affordable housing as set out in the Parish Plan.
I do however have some unanswered questions and reservations across three main areas that will need to be satisfied before I would support any proposal.
· The need – How accurate are the figures?
· The size, scale and appropriateness of the proposal
· The mechanics of the scheme, the practicalities and the future
I would like to find ways that the village can think about the problem and potential solutions in a constructive and democratic way.
This could be viewed as an opportunity to address a serious national problem and develop a solution that not only satisfies a need but that would also enhance the village.
I won’t deny that to do this successfully is a very difficult task but one I am sure that residents in 20 or 50 years would thank us for taking the time and trouble to do.
I am not trying to belittle your efforts as I am sure the group has put a lot of thought and work behind this. However, the current proposal seems a little simplistic and more of knee-jerk reaction to the survey, “We need 23 houses, right let’s build ‘em”.
Should we not take the time to really understand the problems and issues that are idiosyncratic to the village? We should put our heads together to find a solution that is designed to specifically fit Longparish.
Please, let’s not rush this stage; once the buildings go up we cannot go back.
I have the following points that I think should be considered prior to any scheme.
1) What thoughts or methods does the housing group have to persuade those who disagree with low cost / affordable housing? There is a fundamental economic and moral argument, just because there is a need for affordable property; does this mean we have a duty to provide it? The problem is not unique to Longparish, ask any young (or middle aged) person trying to live in London!
Those that hold this point of view will need to be convinced in order for any scheme of any scale to be successful. I would stress that I raise this as an issue only, not as an opinion that I hold.
2) More needs to be done to accurately assess the need within the village for affordable housing. There are many characteristics that are unique to Longparish that need to be considered. Is it wise to rely on extrapolation of county and national figures in such areas as demographics? Is there is a sufficient and robust body of evidence from the last survey to endorse beyond doubt the need for 23 units (e.g. the stated need was spread over 5 years)? The figures may be completely correct, but surely it must be worth conducting more research to confirm this before embarking on a solution (e.g. how much more money in reality will this put into the till at the shop each month? How much is needed?).
3) If we are to build low cost affordable units (or indeed any sizable development) wouldn’t it be better to spread these out across the village. Not only would this more naturally mimic the existing layout of the village but it would also help to integrate any new people into the village. Surely the preservation and enhancement of the community must be a sensible and desirable aim of any new development?
Furthermore under the current scheme each phase of 12 affordable homes comes with 6 open to market homes, if I have understood correctly. This means that in order to make the scheme viable there would be12 open market houses that the village simply doesn’t need.
4) There also needs to be further thought about the type of housing developed. Shared equity ownership of affordable housing means that it rarely stays affordable for long, the price of the house rising with market forces. This in itself raises many questions; let’s not rush into a scheme that may need to be repeated again in a few years. What are the views of those in housing need, rented, or shared ownership? In what proportion?
Suggestions
1) Are we truly at the stage where can make and present proposals? Wouldn’t we be better off gaining a full and complete understanding of the problem? We could then get the village’s ideas of how the problem could be addressed. Once this process had been completed we would be in a much better position to make proposals. I believe that this is closer to the approach that Barton Stacey has taken.
If we go too far too fast we won’t get sensible suggestions from people. Instead you get flippant defensive comments from angry people and this is not constructive.
2) Why not redo the questionnaire (survey)? We could redesign the questions so that they accurately reflect what is relevant to Longparish and help to plan a solution as well as gathering people’s opinions. If this was done soon, while the subject is at the front of people’s minds it would to help drive the numbers of returns. I would be happy to contribute to the design of the questions.
3) Get the village involved with more of the decision making and work behind the scenes, inform us, this is less likely to make people suspicious and sceptical.
In short, I would like to reiterate that I remain open-minded to the idea of affordable development and am sympathetic to those in housing need. I also realise that I am a new-comer to the village and that many people have lived here all their lives. I do appreciate that this is an increasingly common problem throughout the country and one that is unlikely to go away.
I do hope however that you are able to take my views into consideration so that Longparish comes out of this to the better and with the community spirit that is one of its greatest assets, intact.
Kind regards,
Toby Cooper
|
Letter or email |
| 1 |
There must be an open forum/debate.
A new survey needs to be taken - and not during the summer holidays.
Has there been a road usage survey for traffic? What is the effect on the Middleway and Longparish when Picket Twenty houses come on stream?
Why not wait until the houses in Picket Twenty have been built?
Perhaps a new development should be added onto North Acre which already has street lighting, curbing and footpaths.
What is the exact number of affordable houses needed?
Why the need for 18 in an "initial stage" and then more in "further stages"? Keep it small ie 10-12 houses.
Why turn a beautiful old English village into a small town when we are so close to Andover?
Engish villages are unique and their character should be retained.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 2 |
NB Comments are not related to being pro or anti affordable housing, merely observations.
1) Need to attract 16-29 age group
This is unrealistic and I feel should not be a major point. All small communities that have lost rural employment have lost the young working-age population to towns and cities. Village life, with its lack of 'life' for younger people, is not attractive. Need for own transport, no work in the village, no affordable amenities. Once people have families of an age to want a good school things become different.
2) Emphasis on amenities of shop, church, school, pubs etc
How many of the Housing Group and Alternative Group are regular churchgoers?! How much shopping is done in the village? Pubs are a lot more expensive for beer than in town (the young people are aware of this)
3) If built houses are not fully taken up, what happens? 'Outsiders' brought in at a loss of unit(s) in the future?
4) Transport to work for those who mainly will be working age.
Sheet 2
No evidence that those involved in the Housing research and discussions are qualified to say what they say with any certainty or reliability unless qualified personnel are involved from the early stages. There is no chance whatever that the village can accept that any expansion, controlled or otherwise can really be within the village's 'control' in the future. Badly worded I'm afraid (too noisy to think) but we must stop for a moment and begin with experts in place.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 3 |
1) As I have said many times, in my view it is essential that any decision is made by the village as a whole. Imposition by outsiders or even a well-meaning minority of the village would not be appropriate.
2) Would the cost of affordable housing include compensation to existing villagers for loss of value to their properties. If not, is it fair to expect a few to bear the cost for the benefit of the many?
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 4 |
Realistically we find that 40% is the minimum for shared ownership. Below that, the economics don't stack up.
Note taken by JB from Chair of a local Housing Association following discussion
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 5 |
This is a potentially divisive issue that needs to be addressed sensitively and transparently, and I think the first major step would be an open meeting that addresses the issues that have already been raised - I found Tony Holmes' letter of particular interest in this context.
It seems to me that there is still not even general acceptance yet of the 'need' as currently outlined and that, following from this, the scale of any requirement needs to be thought through very carefully - I don't think anyone could object to 5 or 6 terraced houses tucked out of the way, but a mixed development of 18, with the possibility of extending to 36, does seem like major development that would have an inordinate impact on a village of this size. Furthermore, the current choice of potential sites, all of which would be green field developments and one of which is within the conservation area, seems to have had the effect of highlighting possible disadvantages from the outset in terms of loss of current amenities ie the football field, and traditional open spaces that provide the framework for the structure of the village ie the Eagle Star field.
In short, I commend the Housing Group for the work that has been done to date and fully applaud any attempts to maintain Longparish as a fully viable community. However, I feel that this consultative process needs to be approached in a flexible and open-minded way, as, at the moment, there is a real danger of people assuming entrenched positions before the debate proper has even started.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 6 |
1) Will any of the 3 sites be approved by the Environment Agency as all on the flood plain?
2) I believe the Spinney site would be the least intrusive, create fewer car "movements" and have more possibility of being accepted by the majority of residents.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 7 |
How does shared ownership work?
Can someone explain please or give me a handout.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 8 |
In H&V publish answer to ? - who are these people - TVBC has 21 registered. Telephone to confirm.
Offer the "antis" the opportuntiy for a monthly "slot" in H&V
At beginning of each PC meeting give the "antis" a 10 minute slot
If you send out a letter - do a "joint" one - front yours/back theirs.
Don't engage in any argument
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 9 |
I am concerned and alarmed at the scale of this proposed development. This is certainly not the scale of proposal I envisaged when the Parish plan was formulated. I have supported the idea of affordable housing in both the Plan and survey & am extremely concerned that the group feel this is a reasonable proposal.
Both the proposed sites you identify will have a considerable negative effect on the property values of the surrounding properties, and the lives of the people in the immediate vicinity. The football field is an extension of my family's social life - a safe environment for my children to play in. A place where village children are coached in football and for Youth Club to use in the summer. The noise and impact of 18-35 houses and their occupants on neighbouring houses fills me with dread.
We bought our house backing onto a field site - if we had wanted to live at the end of an estate, we would have taken that decision - and no, we can't afford to move, either.
There are significant problems with the pumping station being unable to cope with the amount of waste water from the households at the moment. Last month tankers were out from 7pm to 3am. A sizable increase in the number of houses, downpipes etc will only increase this problem.
Building this development will not solve the problem, in 5 years time there will still be more people 'in need' and I cannot see that guarantees today will carry any weight then. I feel it is the start of something that the community will have no control over, and more building will follow.
This is a sought after village because of the size and layout, increasing it will, I feel, ruin its character.
Regarding points on shops and pubs - it's not just villages that are suffering - corner shops are being driven out of business by economics - being unable to compete with larger supermarkets/online shopping, rather than the number of inhabitants in an area. Plus our pubs draw customer from outside the area.
Anyway I'm running out of paper now - looking forward to the open forum.
Further questions in email:
On the evening I saw a single mother of 2 who's lived in the village for less than 5 months and has no ties to it getting the housing register forms. How do 'they' decide who is a 'village person' or who gets a house - is it done on a points system? Do you have more of a chance if you were born in the village than if you've moved in…. I'm finding this part of the equation difficult to get my head around.
What if 50 people join the register - would it then be necessary to rethink the scale of the development, or are we left with 27 disappointed families?
On the right to buy ones how do they stay affordable? Presumably if one sells with an 80% share and a purchaser only wants to buy 20% the HA buys the rest? Or would potential purchasers have to buy the full 80%?
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 10 |
I do not agree with the idea of any building project within the village to secure our future especially at the cost of the green field sites that we have. Living in a village all my life bar a spell in Andover I returned to a village for the sole reason to bring my family up in a village society where you were not enclosed by houses backing onto gardens and other houses.
I also do not believe that when these houses are all filled that they would ever become available for my children when they are old enough. For them they will have to get to the village as I did - start at the bottom, work hard and move up it - it is hard work but the village is worth it. But only without any development.
I am sure the question of waste water has at some stage already been brought to your attention but being kept awake till 3 in the morning because the drains were not able to take the quantity of water passing through is what would be the cost and upheaval to the village.
PS I like the village hall as it is - it has character.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 11 |
The need seems to have been severely reduced by the very large development proposed and approved for Picket Piece.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 12 |
I agree there is a need for affordable housing within Longparish. The local facilities will only continue if there are people to use them, and I think people with a lot of money tend to use these facilities less. In particular the reduction of the bus service must be very difficult for young people who do not yet have a car.
Personally, I am living with my parents at the moment while I am saving money. I am unsure whether I will remain in the area as I'm considering returning to uni. However I recognise there are others who wish to stay in the village and are unable to. I would also consider returning to the village in the future, particularly when starting a family, and depending on my circumstances I think this scheme could help me.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 13 |
As a villager who has lived here 62 years.
This is a very good scheme. We need affordable houses to keep the true village youngsters in the village. The place is full of weekend & part-time people. The village school etc needs to be used by village people not for outside with village people. My nephews and neices have all had to move away because property is far too expensive (again being forced out by weekenders).
The village life needs to get back to what true village should be not them and us as it appears to be now.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 14 |
I think that there is a need for affordable housing in the village to enable young people who have grown up in the village and have family connections to settle here if they wish to. It does not seem right that only wealthy people can afford to buy here.
The village needs young families to support the school, shop etc
If my children wanted to buy homes in Longparish they would not be able to do so without an affordable housing scheme.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 15 |
A brilliant scheme - always felt the need and so glad something is being done at last. Have 2 grown sons both of whom would love to move back into the village. Impossible for them at present. The sad fact is that some properties in the village are owned by weekenders who like the 'romantic' idea of village life but complain about the facts etc eg cocks crowing, guns shooting etc. We need our young bloods to perpetuate and fulfil the possibilities of our village. We are so lucky to live here - let's share it with our children and make moves to pass on to their children.
Great display and exhibition.
We are not unaware of all the hard work that has been done to collate information and plan these exhibitions. We so appreciate the ongoing consultations. Thank you all.
My husband and I will be thinking at some time of down-sizing to a bungalow, thus freeing up a 3 bedroom property for a family to move into the village. Our interest would be a market value property not an affordable home. Otherwise we may have to move out of the village ourselves. Having lived in this lovely place for nearly 25 years, brought up my family and built up a wonderful network of friends that would be a tremendous wrench. Especially if my 2 sons had managed to return via the route of affordable housing.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 16 |
A great idea - needed something like this to happen. Having been brought up in the village and attended the local school I have long had the desire to return but it's always been impossible for me. Now I have 3 children of my own I would love them to have the upbringing and experience that I had. My mum is getting older now and there may come a time when she needs her sons around.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 17 |
An excellent scheme - younger people are being forced away from the village because of the high prices that properties demand in Longparish - the prices go up simply because "the weekenders" will pay "silly prices" just to spend 2 days a week in a property that lies empty for 5 days a week - what a waste!!
At last something for village people!
Great stuff!
I am 38 years of age and have lived in the village for 32 years - people that I have grown up with have been forced to move away from such a lovely village.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 18 |
This is a fantastic idea - the first real proactive thing the village has done in a long time. This idea offers a real possibility for the youth of the village to stay here. With the prices as they are we are being forced to move into Andover after living in the village all our lives.
I have lived here 31 years and am actively looking to move from my parents' house but Longparish is currently out of the question. The rich folk of Longparish will put forward the argument that buildings will slow down their own value on ther properties but they were the lucky ones able to buy a few years earlier at realistic prices and have subsequently enjoyed enormous growth in the value of their property.
It is time to give the youth a chance and this idea is a real winner.
Excellent!
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 19 |
I think if the development should go ahead it would bring very good opportunities for the village, also with myself being in favour. If this is happening how much the village would benefit from more income.
|
Exhibition interest form (A4 green) |
| 20 |
A development on the Zurich site could look lovely with a village green and a pond.
Comment noted by JB after discussion
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 21 |
Small one bedroom units - as family grow, have to move on.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 22 |
It would be ideal if you had various plots so there could be smaller units that would blend in better. Plus small units for single people.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 23 |
I feel it will be OK as long as the village people choose a design and site with the future in mind.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 24 |
Behind the idea 100%
Like the idea that the new homes cannot be extended.
Before we start can we really really be sure that we will not end up with more houses than we want.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 25 |
Small scale development for young people and old age pensioners.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 26 |
Most offended by the letter signed by 5 local people. They spoke on behalf of the shop and pubs without any consultation. You could not help noticing that these people are all relatively new to the village!!
This village needs to be kept alive.
We do need extra housing. The exhibition is very informative. Good idea to make the football field more central.
Obviously a lot of hard work and thought has gone into the planning. Good luck.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 27 |
Everything self-explanatory. Please carry on the good work!
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 28 |
I fully support need for affordable housing. I am still a little unsure about how you keep them as affordable stock without building again in 10 years time.
Number and design should be well discussed in open.
Siting - my view is should be well within village.
Poor transport to/from village to tie in with working hours is a problem.
Good luck!
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 29 |
We moved into the village with 2 young children a couple of years ago now (now 4 young children). One of the things that we have loved about the village is how welcome we have been made and the efforts that have gone into helping us integrate into village life - we have never before made so many connections with people so quickly - a friendly welcome is received in so many places such as the post office/pubs. It's been a joy to live here.
I have always felt that there is scope for all Hampshire villages to absorb new houses - it helps the village thrive and helps the schools, shop, pubs to survive - I would agree that there is scope for houses to be built in the quantities recommended, but I feel strongly that this should happen fairly slowly - perhaps 3/5 per year? My reason for this is mainly that the friendly nature of the village that we have experienced would allow these new villagers to be integrated/welcomed into the village in the way that we have been.
My concern of building what is effectively a mini-estate is that it would become a community within a community and it would be very difficult to extend a friendly welcome in so many ways.
Also a slower build would enable the school to plan more carefully for expansion. I would be very disappointed if the popularity of the school meant that children from out of catchment couldn't get in.
My final point is that I am a believer in the fact that housing/careful building can actually improve the environment - I would hope therefore that any plans did not compromise too heavily on attractiveness due to cost - a careful mix of design, some of which may be sympathetic to the traditional thatch would be beneficial. If cost is an issue here could some plots be made available to private homeowners willing to build their dream home, thereby enhancing the other surrounding buildings?
It must also be true that some families have had to move out of their homes in the village simply because they have expanding families and aren't able to extend/trade up/ find a suitable house within the village boundaries.
To finish I think the very fact that there has been such a large turnout this evening is a very positive one - regardless of people's opinions either way it does show that the people prepared to give up their free time to serve on the various committees have touched a nerve - the consultation I have witnessed has been impressive - I am full of admiration for the commitment people have shown towards this process.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 30 |
You are 30 years too late for a lot of young people. Our two sons had to move out because the council then put folks in from all over the region at the last build on the Acre. Also all the cottages have been bought by weekenders and have made 3 cottages into one.
Our boys won't come back having made their homes - one in Salisbury, one in Basingstoke and are settled.
|
Tear-off comment form |
| 31 |
Unable to attend 28-11-06 exhibition as too poorly.
As I am very poorly as well as being disabled I do need lots of help + care which my son and partner provide (they currently live in Andover). My son is first call on my Lifeline.
My son and his partner and children (2) may be interested in new affordable housing.
More info: Affordable housing in the village - rented and/or part ownership.
please ring and arrange a suitable time
|
Tear-off comment form |
| 32 |
Please can I have more information about this.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 33 |
Am extremely interested having had family in the village since 1800s. Having to rent through Wills at present. Am on council register.
Please come and talk.
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 34 |
I currently care for my mother who is very poorly at the moment with severe disability and travelling from Andover is a great strain.
I'd like more information about affordable housing - rented/part owned.
Please contact me
|
Tear-off comment form |
| 35 |
I welcome the introduction of new affordable homes.
I am interested - I have lived in the village nearly eight years.
Are you building any accommodation for single people on low incomes?
What's going to be the proportion of affordable homes?
|
Tear-off comment form |
| 36 |
|
Exhibition interest form (A4 green) |
| 37 |
|
Exhibition interest form (A4 green) |
| 38 |
|
Exhibition interest form (A4 green) |
| 39 |
|
Exhibition interest form (A4 green) |
| 40 |
|
Exhibition interest form (A4 green) |
| 42 |
Great proposal. I would prefer vast majority, if not all, of the low cost units (10-12) to be for rent.
Please ensure that needs are met as proposed and that control of the outcome is not lost when the developers and housing assoications get involved.
Will Longparish have the final say on the number and size of the units or could a developer put in a plan for something different and this be approved by Test Valley if still compliant with ESN06?
The Taboo Subject - sites
The areas near The Plough are in need of/would benefit from a more varied social mix. These sites would be ideal for young families, being close to the school but would be a long way from the shop for the elderly who down-sized their property. Perhaps the other site would be a better compromise. In either case a safe, all-weather path to both the school and shop will be essential.
Mike Johnson Phil Harris
Co-ordinator 1 Mayfield Villas
Housing and Sustainable Development Longparish
The Croft
Longparish
11th October 2006
Dear Mike,
I am writing in response to Catherine Sweets request for information on villagers that may require low cost housing in Longparish.
I don’t wish to name names or discuss personal circumstances without first obtaining the consent of the individuals concerned; I will therefore describe their needs in general terms. The housing group will need to determine how to approach the individuals in an appropriate manner at a later date.
My main aim is to ensure that the need is recognised and provision made for those in need. Despite this being made evident by more than one housing needs survey and identified in the Parish Plan after a considerable effort by those involved, there was some doubt expressed by a significant number of parish councillors that the need was genuine or that it may have gone away since the surveys were conducted, I can only assume that they remain unaware of the situation..
To demonstrate that many young villagers wish to and do remain in the village, when circumstances allow, I will give some examples of those who have succeeded:-
Two families have had properties purchased or substantially purchased for them by their parents.
One family has been allocated a bungalow to rent by the housing authority (the smaller bungalows are in less demand than the houses and also tend to become available more regularly as their predominantly elderly tenants pass on).
A family, father now approximately 40 year of age has eventually just been allocated a house to rent after many years absence from the village.
I suspect there are others of whom I am unaware.
I can provide leads to a further 6 young couples (when this is needed) who would have liked to remain in the village had low cost housing been available (for rent, purchase or part purchase) and may wish to return to the village should the opportunity arise. Generally these couples are currently renting or purchasing properties on Andover’s overspill estates.
A common factor seems to be that young people brought up in a village / country environment, find that as their children approach school age, they wish to move away from the housing allocated to them, or where they have gone to get a foot on the housing ladder, in cheaper urban areas. These areas can have problems (with drugs, noise, dysfunctional families as neighbours etc). They wish to return to their home village to bring up their children in a country environment with the schooling and values that they remember, enjoyed and benefited from.
Additionally returning young families have the support of their own parents at hand; this is particularly valuable as (especially in low income households) the economic and social climate dictates that both partners need to work and paying for child care is expensive.
Although I believe that the ‘right to buy’ scheme has now been suspended or limited in some way, the remaining low cost housing to rent is clearly insufficient to meet all these needs, and entails waiting many years, this contributes to the lower than average number of residents in the 16-29 age group.
Low cost housing (starter homes) to purchase or part purchase is non existent.
I only know a relatively small number of the families in the village may be 30 out of 300? and many of these only slightly, yet am aware of the above 12 instances of villagers requiring low cost housing who wished to remain in the village, only 4 of whom have been able to do so. There must be many more people who have needed and currently need low cost housing. The indications are that even if all the current needs are met there will be an ongoing if not increasing future need.
Do you have the individual returns from the survey (Conducted by Community Action Hampshire) or only a summary of the requirements? I think the returns may have been anonymous but they would detail the separate needs even if they don’t identify the persons. I believe they provided information on young adults who envisaged a future requirement as well as the current needs.
I hope you are happy with the way I have presented this information, if you can identify any of the individuals then you already know their circumstances, if not then hopefully I have not divulged anything new or sensitive.
Personal note / comment.
To my mind a major attraction of living in a village is the continuity and contribution provided by families that have resided in the village for several generations; this to me is the backbone that provides the characters, the identity and recent historical context for us all.
In my opinion the parish council should, out of respect for these families who have been in the village much longer than us and for our own long term benefit, facilitate families to remain in the village if they wish. Without this the village is in danger of becoming a loose community of transient households with no roots to hold it up.
The Longparish Community Association is providing many of the facilities and events needed by the villagers; however a failure to address the housing needs would re-enforce the view of some long term residents that the future of the village is being controlled by new comers or those with high incomes whose main interests could be interpreted as maintaining the value of their properties or establishing some sort of rural ideal that does not relate to the realities of village life. Our efforts are not always appreciated.
As one of the potential sites borders on the rear boundary of my property, you may be surprised that I am so keen on a mixed housing development with a low cost housing provision. I would of course prefer the selection of the proposed site with, in my opinion, much better access.
However the potential loss of rural view and direct access to the countryside is to my mind a small price to pay if it prevents a young Longparish family from being allocated housing and having to bring up children in an inappropriate environment.
Contrary to what I said at the last council meeting, I find that one of my daughters would, in the future, like to have a home in a village; she would need low cost hosing to be able to achieve this.
Many of the parish councillors, including myself have taken advantage of the few relatively low cost houses, old semis, end of terrace, small bungalows etc and by modernising or extending them have been able to get the house we desire in a village we like and would otherwise been unable to achieve this.
We are in a very fortunate situation, I believe it is now payback time and we should consider the needs of villagers who are striving to achieve the same for the same reasons as us. After all we are on the council to further the interests of the village as a whole and not to protect the interests of ourselves and a small group of like minded friends and associates.
We would be offended, as are people I have spoken to, if it was suggested that we should live in a new development in Andover rather than in Longparish. It could be argued that they have a better case for preventing outsiders from moving in, than we have for presenting obstacles to them getting housing in their own village.
Due to the make up of the Parish Council and as we normally only associate with people living in similar circumstances we only get the view of perhaps a third of the 300 households in the village, we are often unaware of the difficulties faced by the less well off, the elderly, those with disabilities or without transport, some can not believe that a village as affluent as Longparish only 5 miles from Andover has inhabitants suffering from rural deprivation.
Yours truly,
Phil Harris
|
Exhibition comment form (A4 yellow) |
| 47 |
JB requesting 'Word' copy
|
Letter or email |
| 46 |
To Mr M Johnson & The Housing Group
c/o The Croft, Longparish
cc: The village 27th November 06
Dear Mike & Housing Group
RE: PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN LONGPARISH.
You, the Housing Group, have found it necessary to send out several responses to our first flyer largely to discredit our information; obviously our facts have hit a nerve! We feel that our fellow villagers have a right to know all facts, not just the selective parts The Housing Group think the village should know.
The numbers that were previously quoted by us are not misleading or inaccurate. At the last parish council meeting it was confirmed by both Jeremy and Mike that a total of 36 homes would be needed which is within the 30 to 50 we talked about. The Housing Group has continued to state the village will benefit from a mixed development. The initial development would comprise of 12 affordable homes and 6 open to market commercial homes making a total of 18. You then go on to say this would only meet half the need therefore another 18 would need to be built, giving a total of 36. We would like to point out again that this cannot in any way be considered a “small mixed development” of a few affordable homes relative to the size of the village. By our calculations this will increase the size of the village by nearly 12%.
You say house prices and rents are high in the village. That happens when a village like ours is highly sought after and in high demand. You also comment that residents have extended their properties and have therefore pushed prices up. This is not to mention the owners of houses who have converted two or three cottages into one large house. We would suggest that many of the improvements might have resulted from expanding families or individuals improving their homes. This means they can remain and continue to support the sustainability of the village.
There have been several references to the new policy under which the development could happen. The policy is ESN06 and to-date a development built under this new regulation has not happened anywhere in the UK. Our village could well be ‘pioneers’, i.e. the first, however this makes us feel very nervous. The ESN06 document referred to will continue to work in conjunction with ESN05, 04,03 and so on. With this in mind we would like to draw your attention to the definition of what affordable actually means. This can be found in chapter 6 meeting economic and social needs published by TVBC in the Test Valley borough local plan:
Figure 6.3: Definition of Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Affordable housing is defined as: “housing that is available for people whose income level means that they are unable to access housing locally on the open market. For the purposes of this plan this comprises:
· Subsidized affordable housing which has the benefit of Social Housing Grant either for letting at affordable rents or for sale on a Shared ownership basis; and
· Discounted market housing which is offered for sale, the proposed Sale price being determined as affordable based on average local incomes at the time of application.”
We would like to reiterate we are not in any way against affordable housing, however we are totally opposed to any development of the proposed size and scale in the village.
Other points we feel that you, the Housing Group, should consider:
· Virtually all of the people we have spoken to are not clear how the figure of 23 affordable homes has been calculated. There has been no transparency in the analysis process and thus we believe the survey was flawed for a number of reasons:
o The questions posed were very open, i.e. ones that it would be hard to say “no” to.
o It is our understanding that only 46% of the 29% of households (of a total of 303) that returned the questionnaires wanted affordable housing. This makes just 40 households (only 13%) wanting affordable housing. How many households said “no’; how many did not care; and how many forms were not returned?
o How was the need for 23 units calculated from the results of the returned forms?
o Parents will obviously want their families to remain in the village, but if the young adults were asked would they say the same thing?
· We believe that since the size, locations, and some of the facts of the proposed development are starting to emerge, were another survey be carried out with a more balanced set of questions (e.g. “Do you want to give up green-field sites to a mixed housing development of 36 units in the village?”) the overall result would be very different.
· You titled your recent pamphlet “Village Homes for Village People”. The Housing Group cannot give any one of the “village people” identified as having a need a guarantee that they will get one of the units.
· You say, “UK households are getting smaller.” you go on to say Longparish’s population is also in decline according to the numbers published. Is this really true? What about all the newborn children within the village over the past 18 months not to mention all the new families that have moved in.
· You say, “Our percentage of people aged 16 to 29 is well below the Hampshire average.” This doesn’t surprise us, however if you were to compare our percentage to similar Hampshire villages you may find that, again, the result is very different.
· We welcome the opportunity of an open forum, as stated in the Dec 2006 Hill & Valley, to hold a public village meeting, preferably on a weekend, with reasonable notice, and plenty of time allocated for a full debate. We look forward to a date being set in the near future.
We look forward to seeing you on the 28th.
Chris Dewbury 720383 Richard Maloney 720261
Toby Cooper 720324 Sandra Jones 720551
Robin Smallwood 720086
DO YOU WANT A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN LONGPARISH?
After a recent housing survey in Longparish was carried out, it was concluded that there is a need for affordable/low cost housing.
That may be so, but at what cost to the future of Longparish?
What you may not be aware of are the proposed locations for such a development, or the scale, as this information has not yet been revealed or openly discussed in public. The map attached shows the 3 proposed sites marked A, B and C.
Both sites A & B are adjacent to one another. “A” is the woodland/small copse behind the football pitch and “B” is the football pitch itself. Access to these two sites would be from a new road created from the Middle Way tracking the rear of several properties and the cemetery into the football pitch. Site “C” is the field opposite Mill Lane that runs parallel to the main road through the village (B3048) with the entrance being off the main road.
Our understanding of current guidelines is that the size of the development being proposed is much bigger than the “small mixed development” mentioned on both the Longparish website and in November’s Hill & Valley magazine. The current guidelines for this kind of development are for approximately 30 houses per hectare (2.47 acres) up to a maximum of 50. This would include a mix of housing both in size and affordability. The guideline is that for every 4 affordable homes built, 10 ‘open to market’ homes can be built and sold at commercial market prices. This seems to us to be a long way from a “small development” of a few discreet affordable houses in various locations throughout the village. The proposal appears to be akin to the creation of a housing estate on one or all of these 3 proposed green field sites.
The arguments for this type and scale of development may also be flawed. It is suggested that the lifeblood of the village will be threatened if there is not a development of mixed and affordable/low cost housing. To support this contention, last year’s village population decrease of 13 (from 703 to 690 inhabitants) is highlighted. This is no different from the national average and there is no evidence that the vibrancy of the village has been affected at all.
Both the two pubs and the village shop continue to thrive because they do not just depend upon the population of Longparish. Large numbers of visitors come to the village each week. The school is full, and although approximately 40 of the pupils come from the village, the very fact that it has had a considerable amount of investment recently to bring it, and other village facilities, e.g. the community hall, up to a very high standard, shows that there can be no concerns for its future or sustainability.
The housing Task Group are also concerned that there are only a few 16 to 29 year olds within the village and that those who live here would be unable to stay because of the cost of housing. The reality is that the majority of 16 to 29 year olds are either at school, college or university, or have started their first careers. There is no evidence to suggest that they would wish to stay in a village environment.
The incentive offered by the developers for improving facilities, e.g. the refurbishment of the old village hall and the replacement of the current footpath with an all-weather surface, is we believe, simply not needed.
Although it’s been recognised that a small number of affordable/low cost houses could be needed for the village, this must be carefully balanced against the need to protect the fabric of the village. We do not believe that any development is needed in the village, particularly given the plans to build approx. 3,000 homes outside Andover (up to 1,200 homes at Picket Twenty and up to 2,500 at East Anton/Finkley Down) both being within 5 miles of the village. All of these sites will include affordable/low cost housing creating plenty of opportunities for people to stay within the local area.
What’s clear is that the survey conducted in July asked questions when the facts were not known or disclosed. The Housing Task Group has now had detailed discussions both with land owners and local government. According to our information, the size and location of the development(s) being proposed are considerably different from what people were originally led to believe.
Before this project is allowed to go any further we feel that a full consultation must take place with the intentions of the Housing Task Group being clearly identified. This will enable all members of the village to consider once again whether the need for a mixed housing development, including affordable/low cost housing, on this scale is in fact needed.
We ask you to consider our points carefully and keep in mind the big picture. We are not a group of people who are against affordable housing. Nor are we being NIMBY’s (not in my back yard). We simply don’t want a large-scale development of housing on our Greenfield sites!
There is a public meeting to be held by the Housing Task Group on the 28th November 2006 and a Parish council meeting on the 13th of November 2006. We would advise you to attend either or both of these to express your concerns/opinions.
If you have any comments please do not hesitate to contact one of the below:
Chris Dewbury 720383 Richard Maloney 720261
Toby Cooper 720324 Sandra Jones 720551
Robin Smallwood 720086
|
Letter or email |
| 41 |
Dear Jeremy & the Housing Group,
Thank you for your letter dated 20 November. Unfortunately due to the short notice of Mike’s offer of a table at the forthcoming exhibition and largely to the timings we are unable to take you up on it. That said we very much urge the Housing Task Group to hold a public meeting where the issues can be debated and the concerns aired.
Whilst writing, I am concerned that after yesterday’s debate in the pub that you may have left with the impression that you had started to convince the people present and that your proposals could and should be supported. This is not so, no one present last evening felt you made the case.
Those of us who you wrote to, are unhappy that in your recent article in the Hill and Valley and in Mike’s response to our first open letter you imply that we should have made reference to you, the Council and the Housing Task Group first. We do not see why this should be the case. Therefore please refrain from suggesting that we are acting in an unauthorised manner in the future. We would also like to reiterate the fact, we are not as suggested some kind of Anti / Nimby group.
As you know several serving councillors disagree and have significant doubts over your proposals. This is a very important village issue, which needs a proper and full discussion.
Finally, so that its clear we do not want to see a housing development of any kind or size being built in the village.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Dewbury
cc Toby, Sandra, Robin, Richard
|
Letter or email |
| 51 |
Dear Mike
I am very familiar with the field opposite Mill Lane. For many years we kept the field clean throughout the four seasons of the year - had three horses and nine goats in the field.
I found in the winter season, some being worse than others, that the field would be an absolute morass. As I walked around the field I would see small fountains of water seeping through the ground, this in turn would result in ponds being formed, one being exceptionally large and deep. The source of this water was coming from the sloping cultivated fields to the northerly end of the field. The side of the field to the northern end of the Malthouse became a complete bog, it was impossible to push a barrow through it.
I mention this hopeful that should it be decided to build on this land that the Council will arrange a thorough survey to be carried out in the middle of the winter. This to be done in order to protect potential buyers from flooding and perhaps later subsidence.
One can see now with the vegatation growth where the ponds form. This is not something new, a resident told me that as a schoolgirl she bathed in a pond towards the eastern side of the field.
Best wishes
|
Letter or email |
| 45 |
Open letter from Anthony Holmes, Keepers Cottage
Affordable Housing
I read the article in this month’s Hill & Valley and noted your request for feedback.
I have followed the debate about affordable housing within the village for some time and believe that, in advance of the exhibition you are to mount on 28th November, now is the appropriate moment to share my observations.
Like most other people with whom I have discussed the need for and practicality of providing affordable housing I am a supporter of the principle. The housing market in the south has become detached from incomes to a degree which excludes many first time buyers on economic grounds. Secondly, as rental yields are a function of asset prices, it follows that the affordability of houses to rent, as a proportion of low incomes, is also a barrier to low income households accessing reasonable quality housing.
The government has addressed the issue by obliging councils in the south of England to make greater provision for social or affordable housing but, according to my information, there is no micro-direction to individual villages that they are obliged to fill some externally determined quota or even act at all. This is, sensibly, left to individual areas to determine their need and the physical and economic practicality of making such provision.
Demand
It is clear from the information that you have published that you have determined the need for affordable housing in Longparish on the basis of the general conviction that it is the ‘right’ (by which I mean socially responsible) thing for the parish council to promote and the ‘fact’ that, in your survey,
1) “The survey has identified at least 24 households who need a home in the village either now or in the next five years.
2) “81% of all respondents would support the idea of building a small affordable housing scheme for local people in the parish.”
The survey is of 303 households of which only 29% (88 H/H) responded.
Of these, 46% (40 H/H) would like to buy their own property. It is logical to conclude from this that 64% (48 H/H) either already own their property or are content to rent. In other words the majority are content with the current arrangements.
The survey result (1 above) is not indicative of significant demand or need, that is if they cannot find this kind of accommodation in Longparish they will do nothing and be homeless, it is simply indication of preference. It is not capable of extension to an intention to buy or rent in Longparish if suitable and affordable property became available. Nor is it indicative of the inability of all of those with a ‘preference’ to acquire a house within the next 5 years being incapable of affording property within the current housing stock.
With regard to result (2 above), I suggest that most people when asked whether they support the concept of the cost of housing being ‘affordable’ and located in a place they prefer would give unconditional agreement. Few if any would state that they prefer housing to be less affordable or for there to be none available in the area they prefer. The language of the question is unlikely to elicit any other answer than majority agreement.
Are you really suggesting that it follows that 19% of respondents feel that property prices are affordable or are underpriced?
81% of respondents equals 71 households from a total of 303 which equates to 23%.
The statistic you quote is therefore misleading. It represents 81% of those who responded which, as a group, are not necessarily representative of the population and, given the other results, are more likely to be those to whom the availability of property is an important issue.
The survey could also lead to the conclusion, about which your publications are silent, that 71% of the resident households were not sufficiently concerned about the issue to express an opinion and of those who did a significant majority of 64% were content with the current arrangements. Only a minority of resident households (23%) felt the issue of affordable housing was of sufficient concern to them that they elected to express an opinion.
I therefore suggest that the survey results are distorted and vulnerable to an alternative interpretation to that set out in your publications and provide an insufficient basis for you to conclude that there is a significant unsatisfied and, under present conditions, unsatisfiable demand.
Moreover, and of some concern, I believe that publication of these data in the form that you have adopted is seriously misleading and designed to give spurious support for a predetermined conclusion.
Supply
You point out that there are already within the village 43 properties owned by a registered social landlord but your calculations do not consider the natural vacation of these properties over the 5 year in period which you attempt to determine the extent of demand.
I suggest that if only 2 of these properties were to become available for rent or purchase over each of the next 5 years then around 50% of your assumed demand would be met from the existing housing stock.
Consequently your proposal to build a development of 23 units will result in over supply in respect of the demand anticipated to arise from current village families.
You also assert that the income levels of those families who comprise your presumed demand tends to be less than £2500 pm. However you make no allowance for the 16-34 year old households increasing their income level over this period to a level sufficient for them to afford to purchase a house from the existing housing stock in the village.
That some of these families, through improved incomes and inheritance, will migrate to an economic position were they can afford unsubsidised housing is unarguable.
Therefore the level of demand that you have presumed will reduce further by this number.
As a consequence the excess supply created by your proposal will need to be taken by families not currently living in the village and hence the underlying premise of your plan, that the scheme is necessary to satisfy demand from current village residents, becomes invalid.
Furthermore any deficiency in the supply could also be addressed by re-designating agricultural cottages for occupation by those with some residential qualification.
The problem is not the shortage of houses but the affordability of the housing stock which reduces to the price of housing and the incomes of those who would like to buy them.
Focussing your attention exclusively on building more houses fails to address the fundamental problem and, therefore, will not provide an effective long term resolution.
Assuming that you build these houses what safeguards are there to prevent them being sold subsequently into the general arena at the prevailing market price thereby making a significant capital gain for the occupant with the result that the population unable to afford a property in Longparish is recreated?
Or do you intend to limit the price at which the property can be sold thereby denying occupants the market return on their investment and limiting their access to the property market proper?
Whichever policy you adopt your proposal is not structured to resolve the problem of the affordability of property in Longparish.
Economics of Affordable Housing
I do not intend to discuss the economics of building affordable housing as the difficulties and resulting compromises as to density and quality are well known.
I do not believe, or at least I cannot find in your publications, that sufficient thought has been given to the economics of occupying such housing.
It is axiomatic that families who subsist on incomes insufficient to afford to purchase or rent a suitable property are, in fact, stating that, were they to dispose of their income in mortgage or rental payments they would have insufficient funds available to meet their other needs.
Longparish is not only an expensive village in which to buy or rent accommodation it is also an expensive place to live.
The community charge is, I believe, the second highest in the TVBC area and I can find no proposals for TVBC to reduce this burden for those living in, so called, affordable housing.
The necessary facilities are limited in the village and access is dependent upon residents having their own transport as public transport provision is inadequate.
Consequently each family must have at least one motor vehicle in order to journey to work, buy groceries etc. Two income families will need to incur the cost of running two cars.
The local shopping provision will not ameliorate the cost as it is both inadequate as to range and significantly more costly than the large supermarkets in Andover.
Longparish may be a desirable location but it is inconvenient and therefore not the most economically viable location for those on low income to live irrespective of the cost of housing.
Moreover are you proposing that the shared ownership concept will mean that a financial partner will acquire some fraction of the equity, will not require rent to be paid on their share and will rely exclusively on the capital appreciation for their return?
Alternatively the financial partner would require the occupant to pay rent on the percentage of the property not own by the occupant. In this case the occupant would take a mortgage up to the maximum of their income ( £2.5k of net income = c. £45k pa gross which may fund a mortgage of £150k resulting in monthly payments of £844 per month (6.75% pa) or 34% of their net income. On a 3 bedroom house valued at £350k the rent payable on the balance to give a gross yield to the funder of 4% pa would absorb a further £667 pm or an additional 27% of the occupant’s net income. This leaves a net income £975 pm from which TVBC will demand around £100.
A 1% increase in interest rates would reduce the household’s net income after council charge by £125 or 14%.
Affordable housing, more appropriately called just affordable housing, has a tendency to create an economically deprived population who have been artificially located in a community of comparative prosperity. This leads to the transitory population that I discuss below.
The financial leverage implicit in this equation is such that families are enticed into an arrangement which leaves then exposed and vulnerable to almost any adverse change in their income or costs. As a result your proposals do not eradicate a need but potentially create and even greater hardship.
What you propose is just affordable housing funded by finance with a precipice.
I do not see anything in your proposal that addresses this aspect of the issue.
Traffic
Nor can I find anything in your proposals that addresses the traffic issues relating to such a development.
23 new properties in a high density location may add 34 cars to the village fleet with a concomitant road safety issue.
Transient Population
A further matter about which you are silent is that affordable housing usually creates a transient population who, because of their low income, are vulnerable to any adverse change in their income. If their housing and associated cost of living is just affordable then any deterioration or increase in costs results in their needing to downgrade. So the viability of their housing is made vulnerable to increasing interest rates, increasing council tax, unemployment, increases in tax, increases in fuel costs. None of which are ameliorated by your proposal.
Moreover many will use affordable housing as a entry level facility and will intend to move to larger or a wholly owned property as soon as their economic circumstances allow.
Such a population is impermanent and therefore inimical to the village community that your proposal intends to preserve.
Conclusion
While your proposal addresses an important social need across the south of England there is no obligation for every community to create an enclave of affordable housing.
Your survey which you offer as justification of the need in Longparish is flawed and capable of an alternative interpretation to that presented in your publications.
At best you are prioritising action to resolve a minority preference and not a need (which is, frankly, not your mandate) without adequate demonstration that by doing so you will either enhance or protect from deterioration the general welfare of the community.
While there will undoubtedly be some element of demand in Longparish for affordable housing the figures for supply constraint stated in your proposals are exaggerated even on the basis of your own interpretation of the survey results.
The problem is mis-stated as shortage of supply whereas, in reality, it is the price of the housing stock and the inadequacy incomes.
You have not addressed the contingent economic and social issues that arise as a result of providing this type of housing.
There are other ways to address this minority issue and within Longparish there are other more pressing matters the resolution of which would provide greater benefit to the community in general.
Alternative approaches
Social housing is more appropriately located where the economic conditions (price of land etc) are such that its provision does not make it just affordable housing and where the infrastructure is conducive to the maintenance of a reasonable standard of living.
In our area there are more appropriate locations than Longparish. Andover is obvious. Whitchurch less so but more viable than Longparish. If there are resources available to Longparish residents by way of subsidies to create affordable housing then it would serve their general economic welfare better were these resources to be applied to improving the facilities that might otherwise be available to them in other, near by, locations.
Financial resources could be applied to subsidising the purchase of the existing housing stock for those families with a strong connection to the village. The Parish Council could approach this as a community based buy to let scheme. It follows that if partial ownership is financially viable for new build property it can be made to be so for the existing housing stock. Establishing a charity to fund and manage this equity interest is a possibility that should be explored.
This fraction of the existing housing stock would, by deed of covenant, be available for resale only to other members of the Longparish community who satisfy certain residential and income qualifications.
Agricultural cottages could be acquired preferentially to form the basis of a ring fenced housing stock available only to people with residential qualifications.
Some attempt could be made to deter the sale of smaller properties to weekend occupants.
TVBC could assist the process by waiving all or a significant fraction of the council tax on properties bought by economically disadvantaged occupants subject to periodic review of household income.
****
I am disappointed that your commendable intent has resulted in exaggeration of the problem. It is as though your group has begun with a conclusion and then shaped the argument to fit the preconception. I hope that you will be sufficiently open minded to reconsider the basis of your proposal and adopt a more imaginative approach to finding a solution that is viable and economically sustainable.
Please regard this as an open letter.
Yours
Anthony Holmes
|
Letter or email |