Housing

The Issues

Housing Development

Type of Development

Action

The Issues

Since 1930, two small developments of council housing have been built in Throckmorton most of which are now privately owned. After the airbase in Throckmorton was closed, the officers’ quarters were sold for private occupation and the area of the officers’ mess was developed as further private housing and a rest home for the elderly. Redundant farmhouses and buildings have been developed as private housing.

Over the same period two small developments of council housing were also built in Bishampton most of which are also now privately owned. Little extra development took place until mains drainage became available in the 1960’s when four small housing estates were built (Church End, Abberton Road, Moat Farm Lane and Babylon Lane with Stanton Fields). Since 1980 further estate development has taken place in the village at Nightingale Farm, Green Leys, Dorrells Orchard along with other infill housing projects.

Housing was the fourth largest ‘Hot Topic’: about 12% of the total comments and these can be broken down as follows:-

• The largest group of comments, over half, drew attention to the need for low cost housing/starter homes for the first time buyer. There was concern about how young people could remain in the villages without such availability, though no mention was made of housing for rent.
  
• Some comments called for the provision of social housing.
  
• There was concern about the perceived unbalanced nature of new developments, focussing on executive style houses. Some suggestions favoured setting a ‘percentage mix’ or a price bracket restriction on future planning consents.
  
• A number of the comments simply stated the view that the villages were large enough and were against further ‘back building’.

The parish plan survey sought to clarify and test these opinions further.

Housing development

Parishioners were asked to indicate the strength of their support for further housing development, irrespective of the village boundaries. In Bishampton there was a sizeable majority opposed to any further development (about 60%), whereas in Throckmorton opposition was less strong (about 35%) with opinion more evenly divided between support, opposition and neutrality.

However, when households were asked for their views on housing development confined within village boundaries, Bishampton residents were less opposed, opinions being fairly evenly divided between those for and those against. Whereas in Throckmorton views did not change much; there being a marginal switch from opposed to neutral. This is possibly because Throckmorton does not have a defined planning boundary in the same way as Bishampton.

Type of Development

The survey asked households to indicate the strength of their support or opposition to different kinds of housing development. Households could indicate ‘strong support’, ‘support.’, ’no strong feeling either way’, ‘opposition’ or ‘strong opposition’. In Table 4, the categories of ‘strong support‘ and ‘support’ have been combined, as have those of ‘strong opposition’ and ‘opposition’ to give three categories: Support, Neutral and Oppose. The figures are given separately for Bishampton and Throckmorton, as there were differences which it would be important to clarify and take into account in any future discussion about possible developments.

A clear and substantial majority in both parishes were opposed to the building of further large ‘executive style’ houses (About 80% in Bishampton and nearly 70% in Throckmorton).

There was a small majority in Bishampton who would support small scale family homes, (56%) and a slightly larger one in favour in Throckmorton (67%).

In Bishampton a small majority of households who would support low cost, starter type housing development (53%, with 15% neutral) whilst, in contrast, 62% of Throckmorton households would support such a development, with only 17% outright opposed.

Half of Bishampton respondents would oppose a social housing/housing association type development; Throckmorton respondents divide more evenly, 40% would support, 28% neutral and 31% would oppose.

Finally, people were asked to rank their support for the development of affordable housing, if the only possible location was outside village boundaries. Almost two thirds of Bishampton residents would oppose such a development. In Throckmorton, residents were almost evenly divided between those who would support such a development, those neutral and those who would oppose it.

What the residents of Bishampton and Throckmorton seem to be saying is:

1. There is no support for development outside village boundaries; Throckmorton residents might support an affordable housing development outside the boundary, but not enthusiastically.
   
2. There is no majority support for any further housing development inside village boundaries, though opposition in Throckmorton is not as strong as in Bishampton.
   
3. In the event that in real life development cannot be frozen both groups:-
   
   • definitely do not want any more large, executive dwellings;
     
   • are moderately well disposed to small family homes, Throckmorton more so;
     
   • are slightly less, but still well disposed to affordable housing;
     
   • are ill disposed (Bishampton ) or on the fence (Throckmorton) in respect of social housing.

Action

These views will form the ‘strategic intent’ at Parish level.

Action: The Parish Council will take these views into account when commenting on Planning Applications.

Investigation of possible sites suitable for affordable housing: Parish Council, District Council Social Housing Office.