walkeringham planning survey - bassetlaw

WalkeringhamPlanning Survey

March 2018

Contents

• Background

• Conclusions

• Map of Sites & Overview of Results

• Rank Order of Agreement

• Net Scores for each site

• Comments on Individual Sites

• Appendices

Page Number

• 3

• 4-6

• 7

• 8-13

• 14-17

• 18-52

• 53

Produced by Osiris Market Research 2

Background

• As part of the new Bassetlaw Local Plan which will be in force for 15 years from 2020, Walkeringham must make development land available for up to a maximum of 100 new dwellings.

• Local residents’ views were sought to inform which of the proposed sites are to be included and which are to be excluded. A map outlining the proposed sites is shown in the Appendices of this document.

• A Drop-In event was held on Saturday 10th February 2018 at the village hall. Residents were given the opportunity to complete a questionnaire indicating their agreement or disagreement as to which of the proposed sites should be put forward for development. They were also asked for written comments they might have about each site.

• In addition, any resident who could not attend the event was invited to make written comments beforehand with comment sheets posted through the Village Hall letterbox before the 10th

February.

• In total 134 completed questionnaires/comment sheets were returned.

• These have been analysed by an external market research provider. A summary of the results are reported in this document.

Conclusions

• Sites that residents are most positive about putting forward for development – fewer than 15% disagree.

• In addition, most are positive towards but less so……

NP23 - Brickenhole Lane

NP08 - Caves Lane

NP13A - Fountain Hill Road

NP09 Fountain Hill Road

NP13B Fountain Hill Road

NP26 Brickenhole Lane/South Moor Road

NP14 Opposite Playing Field

NP02 Birdcroft Lane

NP10 The Grange

NP01 Fountain Hill, Brickyard Lane

NP33 North Moor Road

NP17 Playing Field

NP18 Village Hall

NP03 Brickyard Lane



Conclusions

• Residents more positive than negative BUT over 25% of population disagree – likely to be some objections

NP15 Former Brickworks

NP16 Caves Lane

NP07 West/South Moor Road

NP11 Caves Lane

NP24 High Street


NP16 Caves Lane

Conclusions

• Strong Opposition but less so than some ……………

NP12 Brickyard Lane, Over Canal

NP22 Beckingham Road

NP27 Brickenhole Lane/Gringley Road

NP31 West Moor Road/the Moor

NP19 West/South Moor RoadNP04 High Street

NP29 West Moor Road/The Moor

NP06 Rear West, Moor Road

NP30 North Moor Road/The Moor

NP28 Millbauk Road

NP25 South Moor Road/The Moor

• Very strong Opposition – over 50% disagree ……………

Green = Strong agreementAmber = MiddlingRed = Strong Disagreement

Rank Order of Agreement of sites that should be put forward for planning

Highest Agreement that should be put forward for development• These sites were the most frequently

endorsed as suitable to be put forward for residential development

• Green Bar shows the proportion of all who responded who agreed that site should be included in development

• Grey Bar – proportion who made no comment

• Red Bar – proportion who disagreed that the site should be included in development

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


NP08 - Caves Lane






66%

60%

58%

60%

57%

57%

59%

23%

25%

30%

25%

30%

30%

26%

11%

14%

12%

15%

13%

13%

15%

Most Frequently Agreed With

% Agree % No Comment % Disagree

• A majority of residents agreed that suitable for development

• Fewer than 21% disagreed

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NP02 Birdcroft Lane

NP10 The Grange



NP17 Playing Field

NP18 Village Hall

NP03 Brickyard Lane

54%

51%

54%

51%

52%

52%

51%

28%

31%

27%

31%

27%

27%

28%

17%

17%

19%

18%

21%

21%

21%

More Frequently Agreed With than Disagreed


Strong Agreement that should be put forward for development

• Levels of endorsement still high but ……

• Proportion disagreeing that should be included for development is a substantial minority – between a fifth of residents and a third

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




NP16 Caves Lane


NP11 Caves Lane

NP24 High Street

49%

46%

52%

46%

46%

40%

40%

31%

34%

21%

28%

25%

31%

27%

21%

19%

27%

26%

30%

29%

34%

More Frequently Agreed With than Disagreed


Middling Agreement that should be put forward for development

Stronger Disagreement that should be put forward for development

• Proportion disagreeing exceeds the proportion agreeing……by a substantial proportion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%






NP04 High Street

30%

24%

30%

25%

24%

26%

28%

34%

20%

27%

28%

23%

43%

43%

50%

48%

49%

51%

More Frequently Disagreed with…..


• Sites where the majority –between 55 and 60% - of residents disagree that these sites should be included for development

• Relatively few have no comment

• Only around a fifth of residents agree that the sites should be included in development plans

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




NP28 Millbauk Road


22%

19%

20%

22%

20%

22%

27%

23%

18%

19%

55%

54%

57%

60%

60%

Most Frequently Disagree


Highest Disagreement that should be put forward for development

Net Scores for each SiteNet Score = Total who Agree – Total who disagree

A positive score shown in green indicates stronger agreement than disagreement. A negative score shown in red indicates a higher level of disagreement than agreement

Summary of sites with a High Positive Net Score

54

46

46

45

45

45

44

37

34

34

33

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


NP08 - Caves Lane






NP02 Birdcroft Lane

NP10 The Grange



NET SCORENet Score

Net Score = Total who Agree – Total who DisagreeA positive score shown in green indicates stronger agreement than disagreement.

Summary of sites with a Middling Positive Net Score

31

31

31

28

27

25

19

16

11

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

NP17 Playing Field

NP18 Village Hall

NP03 Brickyard Lane




NP16 Caves Lane


NP11 Caves Lane

NP24 High Street

NET SCORENet Score

Net Score = Total who Agree – Total who DisagreeA positive score shown in green indicates stronger agreement than disagreement.

Summary of sites with a Negative Net Score

-13

-19

-20

-22

-25

-25

-33

-36

-37

-37

-40

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0






NP04 High Street




NP28 Millbauk Road


NET SCORENet Score

Net Score = Total who Agree – Total who DisagreeA negative score shown in red indicates a higher level of disagreement than agreement

Summary for Individual SitesIncluding comments from residents by site

Summary for Individual Sites

Mostly Positive - Sites shown in site numerical order

Comments on NP01Fountain Hill Brickyard LaneNumber of Residents who commented on this site: 78 of 134

Number of people who mentioned

Proportion of all comments for this site

For small site only/1-10 houses 12 15%Access is dangerous/poor 9 12%Outside the development/village area 9 12%Good area for development/expand village 7 9%

Single track/narrow road/highway issues/needs widening 6 8%Very accessible 5 6%Infill Development 4 5%Vehicle access 3 4%Need/keep green space (for people/wildlife/farmland/open aspect) 3 4%Linear development 3 4%Blind corners 2 3%Will spoil canal area 2 3%No impact on listed buildings 2 3%Definitely not/unsuitable 2 3%No large estates/ruin village feel/make it too big 1 1%Too big for location 1 1%Make it like a twin village 1 1%Wouldn’t support satellite settlements 1 1%Fine near existing or extending houses/development 1 1%Will upset some residents 1 1%Good idea/definitely 1 1%Ok/no issues 1 1%Cannot comment/no idea/need more info 1 1%

54

19

34

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

% Agree put forward forplanning

% Disagree

Net Score (Agree - Disagree)

Comments on NP02Birdcroft LaneNumber of Residents who commented on this site: 78 of 134

Comments madeNumber of Comments Percentage of all comments for this site

NP02 For small site only/1-10 houses 9 12%

NP02 Infill Development 8 10%

NP02 Access is dangerous/poor 7 9%

NP02Single track/narrow road/highway issues/needs

widening 6 8%

NP02 Linear development 6 8%

NP02 Too much/increased traffic 5 6%

NP02 Good area for development/expand village 5 6%

NP02 Use for commercial use only 3 4%

NP02 Surface water/flooding/drainage 3 4%

NP02 Very accessible 3 4%

NP02Fine near existing or extending houses/development

3 4%

NP02 Ok/no issues 3 4%

NP02 Vehicle access 2 3%

NP02 Outside the development/village area 2 3%

NP02 Too close to others 2 3%

NP02 Too many houses already 2 3%

NP02 No large estates/ruin village feel/make it too big 1 1%

NP02 Keep/too close moor/bog land (always been there) 1 1%

NP02 Move/need playing field elsewhere/accessible 1 1%

NP02 Eyesore/unwanted 1 1%

NP02 Not a linear development 1 1%

NP02 In keeping with the/sympathetic to/village 1 1%

NP02 Good near Linear infill 1 1%

NP02 Invasion of privacy 1 1%

NP02 Definitely not/unsuitable 1 1%

54

17

37

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP03 –Brickyard Lane

Number of Residents who commented on this site: 72 of 134

CommentsNumber of comments Percentage of all comments for this site






widening 4 6%





NP03 Will spoil canal area 2 3%



NP03Need/keep green space (for

people/wildlife/farmland/open aspect) 1 1%


NP03 Already refused 1 1%

NP03 Too big for location 1 1%

NP03 Wouldn’t support satellite settlements 1 1%



1 1%

NP03 Will upset some residents 1 1%

NP03 No mains gas/water/sewage 1 1%

NP03 Cannot comment/no idea/need more info 1 1%

51

28

31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP05 North Moor Road














2 3%

NP05 Tandem building 2 3%



widening 1 2%




NP05 Overcrowded/larger population 1 2%

NP05 Unsuitable/already used 1 2%

NP05 Don’t demolish old houses to build new 1 2%

NP05 Too noisy/peaceful village 1 2%



46

19

27

0 10 20 30 40 50


% Disagree


Comments on NP07 –West/South Moor Road












widening 4 4%

NP07 Blind corners 4 4%






3 3%




NP07 Adjacent to/across road/close by 1 1%


NP07 Too small 1 1%







46

30

16

0 10 20 30 40 50


% Disagree


Comments on NP08 –Caves Lane





widening 12 15%













NP08 Too small 1 1%



1 1%

NP08 Good for bungalows 1 1%

NP08 Agree existing application only 1 1%





60

14

46

0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP09 Fountain Hill Road








widening 4 6%







2 3%


NP09 Not in/near village boundary 1 2%





NP09 Too small 1 2%



57

13

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP10 The Grange







3 4%



NP10 Spoil school/surroundings 2 3%

NP10 Ridge & Furrow heritage 2 3%



NP10 Too small 2 3%




widening 1 1%


NP10 Extra school places/bigger school 1 1%




NP10 Service road needed 1 1%


NP10 High level of investment 1 1%

NP10 Put near school 1 1%

NP10 Maybe 1 1%

51

17

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP11 Caves Lane




widening 20 22%

















NP11 Too small 1 1%

NP11 Wouldn’t support satellite settlements 1 1%




1 1%


NP11 Maybe 1 1%


40

29

11

0 10 20 30 40 50


% Disagree


Comments on NP13a Fountain Hill Road



NP13A For small site only/1-10 houses 16 25%

NP13A Infill Development 6 9%

NP13A Blind corners 4 6%

NP13A Outside the development/village area 4 6%

NP13A In keeping with the/sympathetic to/village 4 6%

NP13A Too much/increased traffic 3 5%

NP13A Access is dangerous/poor 3 5%

NP13A Linear development 3 5%

NP13A Definitely not/unsuitable 3 5%

NP13ASingle track/narrow road/highway issues/needs

widening 2 3%

NP13A Very accessible 2 3%

NP13A Good area for development/expand village 2 3%

NP13A Put near school 2 3%

NP13A Ok/no issues 2 3%

NP13A No large estates/ruin village feel/make it too big 1 2%

NP13A Ridge & Furrow heritage 1 2%

NP13ANeed/keep green space (for


NP13A Don’t demolish old houses to build new 1 2%

NP13A Too small 1 2%

NP13A Pollution 1 2%

NP13AFine near existing or extending houses/development

1 2%

NP13A Will upset some residents 1 2%

NP13A Cannot comment/no idea/need more info 1 2%

58

12

46

0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP13b Fountain Hill Road



NP13B For small site only/1-10 houses 17 25%

NP13B Infill Development 7 10%

NP13B Blind corners 5 7%

NP13B Too much/increased traffic 4 6%

NP13B Very accessible 4 6%

NP13BSingle track/narrow road/highway issues/needs

widening 3 4%

NP13B Access is dangerous/poor 3 4%

NP13BFine near existing or extending houses/development

3 4%

NP13B Good area for development/expand village 3 4%

NP13B Definitely not/unsuitable 3 4%

NP13B Ridge & Furrow heritage 2 3%

NP13B Surface water/flooding/drainage 2 3%

NP13B Outside the development/village area 2 3%

NP13B In keeping with the/sympathetic to/village 2 3%

NP13B Will upset some residents 2 3%

NP13B Ok/no issues 2 3%

NP13B No large estates/ruin village feel/make it too big 1 1%

NP13BNeed/keep green space (for


NP13B Don’t demolish old houses to build new 1 1%

NP13B Linear development 1 1%

NP13B Put near school 1 1%

60

15

45

0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP14 Opposite Playing Field


Column1Comments

Number of comments Percentage of all comments for this site






7 8%



widening 5 6%


NP14 Service road needed 3 4%





NP14 Ribbon development only 2 2%








NP14 Keep level of impact on biodiversity minimal 1 1%

NP14 Good transport route 1 1%

NP14 Good idea/definitely 1 1%

59

15

44

0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP15 Former Brickworks


Column1Comments made

Number of CommentsPercentage of all comments for this

site

NP15 Use for amenities/village hall/leisure etc 23 20%


NP15 For marina 15 13%







NP15 Access restrictions over bridge/canal bridge 2 2%










widening 1 1%


NP15 Not needed in village 1 1%



NP15 Split the village 1 1%

NP15 Make it like a twin village 1 1%


NP15 Too far from village 1 1%

NP15 No mains gas/water/sewage 1 1%

NP15 Tourism 1 1%


52

27

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP16 Caves Lane





widening 15 19%










NP16 Too small 2 3%










1 1%






46

26

19

0 10 20 30 40 50


% Disagree


Comments on NP17 Playing Field


CommentsNumber of comments

Percentage of all comments for this site



NP17 Good as it is 7 7%

NP17 Make central 7 7%




widening 5 5%



NP17 Put it near school 4 4%

NP17 Where is elsewhere? 3 3%








NP17Keep/too close moor/bog land (always been

there) 1 1%






NP17 Keep level of impact on biodiversity minimal 1 1%




NP17 Infrastructure 1 1%


52

21

31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP18 Village Hall












NP18 Convert/need shop or Post Office 3 4%




NP18 Where is elsewhere? 2 2%


widening 1 1%




1 1%


NP18 Concerned about planning permission 1 1%

NP18 Survey is expensive to do 1 1%



52

21

31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP23 Brickenhole Lane






widening 9 9%








5 5%








NP23 Nice as it is/quiet 1 1%




66

11

54

0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP24 High Street


















widening 2 2%








NP24 Good use of land 1 1%

NP24 Improve High Street 1 1%

NP24 Accessible for residents 1 1%

NP24Fine near existing or extending

houses/development 1 1%



NP24 Infrastructure 1 1%

40

34

6

0 10 20 30 40 50


% Disagree


Comments on NP26 Brickenhole Lane/South Moor Road Number of Residents who commented on this site: 46 of 134






widening 3 7%












NP26 Better elsewhere 1 2%






1 2%



57

13

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree

























NP32 Too small 1 1%





1 1%



49

21

28

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree









NP33 Too small 4 6%








2 3%
















51

18

33

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Summary for Individual Sites

Strongly Negative - Sites shown in site numerical order

Comments on NP04 –High Street















3 3%





NP04 Area to be left rural 1 1%

NP04 Schools safety-traffic 1 1%








NP04 Mix applications between 2 areas 1 1%



26

51

-25

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

% Agree put forward for planning

% Disagree


Comments on NP06 Rear West, Moor Road










widening 7 6%




















NP06 Better sites available 1 1%




1 1%



19

54

-36

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP12 Brickyard Lane Over Canal



NP12 Access restrictions over bridge/canal bridge 20 20%








widening 5 5%















30

43

-13

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50


% Disagree


Comments on NP19 West/South Moor Road










widening 5 5%


















NP19 Well networked 1 1%



24

49

-25

-40 -20 0 20 40 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP22 Beckingham Road










widening 4 5%











NP22 Not on a flood plain 1 1%




1 1%





24

43

-19

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50


% Disagree


Comments on NP25 South Moor Road/The Moor











widening 4 3%












NP25 Devalue property 2 2%






NP25 More/better public transport 1 1%



20

60

-40

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP27 BrickenholeLane/Gringley Road Number of Residents who commented on this site: 130 of 134




widening 16 12%



















NP27Keep/too close moor/bog land (always been

there) 1 1%


NP27 Partial development 1 1%


NP27 Nice as it is/quiet 1 1%







30

50

-20

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP28 Millbauk Road







NP28 Extra school places/bigger school 15 11%










widening 2 1%

NP28 Spoil school/surroundings 2 1%





NP28 Make it like a twin village 1 1%



NP28 Well networked 1 1%


NP28 Mix applications between 2 areas 1 1%


22

60

-37

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP29 West Moor Road/The Moor














widening 4 3%



NP29Fine near existing or extending

houses/development 3 2%












NP29 More/better public transport 1 1%



22

55

-40

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60


% Disagree


Comments on NP30 North Moor Road/The Moor















widening 3 3%












1 1%


20

57

-37

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80


% Disagree


Comments on NP31 West Moor Road/The Moor
















widening 2 2%


NP31 Packed in 2 2%







NP31 Too small 1 1%


1 1%




25

48

-22

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60


% Disagree


Summary for Individual SitesAppendices:

Map of Sites

Questionnaire/Comment Sheet

Map of sites & Questionnaire Form

walkeringham planning survey - bassetlaw

Documents