CASE STUDY
FOSSE VILLAGES
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING
ONE OF 17 PILOT SCHEMES IN
THE FIRST WAVE OF
NEIGBOURHOOD PLANNING
UNDER THE LOCALISM ACT
Mike Lee
• Chairman of Blaby South Community Forum for
3½ years. Also now Chairman of the Fosse Villages
Neighbourhood Plan Group (FVNP)
• Formerly on Sapcote PC for 18 years, Chairman
for 5 terms.
• Resident of Stoney Stanton/Sapcote since 1975.
• Some experience of demographic and development
planning in the UK and overseas through the
RGS, Industry and New Towns Commission in the
1970’s.
2
What are the “Fosse Villages”?
A more recognisable name for the
Blaby South Forum Area!
A Very Distinct Area of Rural Villages Bounded
by Major Virtually Conjoined Settlements
• Leicester Forest
West*
• Huncote
• Thurlaston
• Croft
• Potters Marston*
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elmesthorpe
Stoney Stanton
Sapcote
Aston Flamville*
Sharnford
Wigston Parva*
* Parish Meetings
3
THE FOSSE VILLAGES
4
WHY FOSSE VILLAGES?
• It was perceived that the Blaby South Community
Forum had achieved a measure of success with strong
participation and support from both residents and the
Parish Councils /Meetings.
• Blaby South is a rural area as opposed to the two
other more “suburban” and developed Blaby areas; it
has very active Parish Councils.
• The villages recognise that they have much in
common and that development in one has
consequences for the others.
• Thanks to the strong support of both LCC and BDC
the area was put forward to the DCLG as a pilot
candidate area and the only aggregation of Parishes.
5
COMMON
OPPORTUNITIES/PROBLEMS
• THROUGH TRAFFIC. ESPECIALLY HGV’S.
NOISE/ EXHAUST POLLUTION
• DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES FOR
UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING.
• OVER DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGE
STRUCTURES. CONGESTION.
• LACK OF FACILITIES FOR YOUNG AND
OLD, ESPECIALLY LEISURE AND
TRANSPORT. LACK OF ROADSIDE
FOOTPATHS.
6
• DEVELOPER ACQUISITION OF
VILLAGE COLLAR LAND.
• LOSS OF FACILITIES LIKE SHOPS
• VERY STRONG INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITIES.
• SOME SOURCES OF EMPLOYMENT,
MANY SMALL & HOME BASED
BUSINESSES.
• PLEASANT COUNYTRYSIDE.
• TRAVELLER PRESSURES.
• OPPORTUNISTIC APPLICATIONS!
7
WIGSTON PARVA
8
B4114 SHARNFORD
9
THE FOSSE WAY
10
CROFT HILL
11
SO WHAT IS NEIGHBOURHOOD
PLANNING?
• The replacement of the existing Whitehall ► County ►
District system by the development of a community based
Neighbourhood Plan, developed in this case by the
Parishes working together.
• The plan will developed within the next 10 months and will
be subject to scrutiny by BDC, LCC and ultimately by
scrutineers from the DCLG. It will accord with the BDC
Core Strategy to which the FVNP group has made input.
• It may then be required to be submitted for referendum
approval before adoption. This may have its problems!
• Matters such as Highways, Waste and Mineral Extraction
remain within the LCC bailiwick.
12
• The plan must :– Comply with legal/procedural requirements.
– Have regard to National, Regional and Local
Planning Policies.
– Take proper account of existing relevant
information and carry out any necessary
research to produce a robust, justifiable,
evidence based recommendation.
– Recommend appropriate policies and proposals
and meet real neighbourhood development
requirements.
– Be the result of proper community consultation.
13
Methodology
• The plan will be developed by each Parish
Council/Meeting and integrated into the final
Neighbourhood Development Plan proposal.
• It will be developed by consultation with input and
consideration by residents, community groups and
local businesses; plus transport, heritage, leisure,
future development needs, social housing, facility,
employment and environmental considerations.
• The style of any development is also a
consideration, to ensure that it compliments the
local visual environment.
14
• This is a new experience for Parish Councils and
strong support is being provided by LCC, BDC
and a project link officer from DCLG, Pamela
Roberts (formerly MHDC).
• In addition the Chairman, with LCC and BDC
officers has already attended meetings at the
DCLG/T&CPA/PAS and a “Planning For Real”
Seminar run in the area for all the FVNP Parishes.
• A problem is that of co-ordination and Parish
Council delegation - normally this has to be via the
Clerk. DCLG guidance is being sought!
15
• To meet the requirements a Joint Working
Board has been established consisting of the
Chair or deputed member of each PC and
their Clerk. Each PC/PM has a vote, whilst
the group chairman has only a casting vote.
Its purpose is to guide the whole project.
• Overall Terms of Reference have been
agreed to ensure that the Board operates in
a clear and transparent manner.
• One PC – Sapcote has been appointed as
fund holder. A Vice Chairman has also been
appointed.
16
• Within the Board a working group has been established
with support from LCC/BDC and the RCC, and a
professional Planning Consultant engaged as Project
Manager.
• Initial Governance, Communication, Resource and
Appraisal Strategies have been developed.
• A public launch/communication programme is being
developed to commence in May, with stakeholder
communication/training. This is being done in conjunction
with the RCC.
• This will be followed by exhibition events in each village
and strategies for the plan’s agreement, results
presentation, followed by scrutiny/inquiry, plus
finalisation/referendum approval and delivery.
• The Project Manager will also be required to ensure
budget compliance and to ensure that, as appropriate,
external funding is sought.
17
FVNP IDENTITY
18
Risks, Opportunities and Method
• So far it has been apparent that much of the
national procedure and process has not been fully
thought through and the pilots are having to dispel
“fog” levels.
• There is a very considerable learning curve for all
concerned! It is a highly innovatory process.
• Whilst the Fosse Villages have some extremely
experienced Clerks, they will be working together
to assist less experienced colleagues, with long
term more general benefits. Parish Meetings are
linked with adjacent PC’s.
19
• The process is very expensive and beyond Parish
Council precept resources. It also involves
substantial extra Clerk time/materials etc.
• The DCLG allocated each pilot £20K, but the cost
of a multiple body scheme is obviously more than
a unitary one.
• Fortunately additional grants have been made by
LCC, BDC and the BSCF. This will still require
additional support as the project progresses.
• BDC has agreed to fund the scrutiny and
referendum stages.
• There is one opportunity to develop the
neighbourhood plan and it must be right!
20
• Fortunately LCC and BDC as well as DCLG have
provided unstinting officer support.
• Unfortunately some national statements from
Westminster citing the rationale behind the policy
as being intended to generate economic growth
and reduce planning control have already
damaged the policy’s public credibility. This has
been worsened by comment that developers
should be involved in its design.
• Credibility is vital for the policy’s success. This is
having to be addressed by local communication.
21
• The past policy of imposed development
volumes, however professionally executed,
has already produced problems and the
failure to extract and employ appropriate
section 106 investment has exacerbated this.
• Many villages have already been over
developed beyond the capacity of their
centres to safely handle existing traffic e.g.
Stoney Stanton, Sharnford and Sapcote.
THERE HAS BEEN NO IMPROVEMENT
IN THE AREA’S ROAD NETWORK FOR
ALMOST 40 YEARS!
22
• The lack of effective Public Transport, is being still
further reduced, making truly sustainable
development in many areas impractical.
Additionally Public Transport cannot meet the
destination diversity required in the FVNP area.
• There are already numbers of long term unsold
new houses in the south western end of the area,
with travel cost being cited as a source of sales
resistance.
• Developers are for profit organisations, and prefer
the development which is most profitable – often
3/4/5 bedroom detached houses. There are
concerted attempts to exploit the window of
change for previously unacceptable applications.
23
• This would often appear to fail to meet local
housing needs, which requires more entry
level and social housing to accommodate the
younger “home grown” population.
• Additionally, given the opportunity of
suitable and adaptable housing, many older
people would welcome the opportunity of
smaller more affordable/manageable
housing, particularly in their own village.
• This would dramatically free up the
“middle” family housing market.
24
CONCLUSIONS
• All of the above has to be researched and
verified or adapted to be robustly
incorporated in the plan, which must be
acceptable to the residents.
• It will be a long and challenging process and
we need all the help we can get!
• The successful passage of the Localism Act
into law as a workable piece of legislation is
obviously key to the whole process.
25
FOSSE VILLAGES
FROM
HIGH CROSS TO HUNCOTE
26