WNP13 Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan Detailed Annex August … · e Sch ˙Certificate7 Pr ression/A...

Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan

Detailed Annex ndash Summary Paper

Published by Woldingham Parish Council

August 2014

Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan Detailed Annex ndash Summary Paper

August 2014

Contents

1 Selected Parish statistics

2 Community Engagement

3 Community Survey

4 Contributions from Neighbourhood Plan Project Groups

1 Selected Parish Statistics The following statistics and evidence are primarily drawn from the 2011 Census These are used to provide an overview of the current status of the community Other sources of data or information are acknowledged where applicable

11 Demographics1

The usual resident population of the parish is 2141 people (901 male 1240 female) Of these bull People aged 15 and under (227 of parish population compared to 194 across the District and 19 across England)

bull People aged 16 to 64 (593 of parish population compared to 625 across the District and 65 across England)

bull People aged 65 and over (180 of parish population compared to 185 across the District and 16 across England)

Age band Parish Figure 2011 (number and )

District Figure 2011 (number and )

0 to 4 93 (43) 4886 (59) 5 to 7 52 (24) 2895 (35) 8 to 9 42 (20) 1820 (22) 10 to 14 241 (113) 5391 (65) 15 58 (27) 1084 (13)

16 to 17 134 (63) 2253 (27) 18 to 19 61 (28) 1647 (20) 20 to 24 72 (34) 3997 (48) 25 to 29 62 (29) 3905 (47) 30 to 44 282 (132) 16255 (196) 45 to 59 492 (230) 17898 (216) 60 to 64 167 (78) 5612 (68) 65 to 74 232 (108) 7890 (95) 75 to 84 109 (51) 5174 (62) 85 to 89 29 (14) 1417 (17)

90 and over 15 (07) 874 (11) All Usual Residents 2141 82998

12 Economic status of residents2

Of the 2141 usual residents of the parish 1502 were aged between 16 and 74 and of these bull 904 (602) were economically active

o 442 were Employed fullshytime (294 compared to 407 across District)

1

httpwwwneighbourhoodstatisticsgovukdisseminationLeadTableViewdoa=7ampb=111308

54ampc=woldinghamampd=16ampe=62ampg=6470476ampi=1001x1003x1032x1004ampm=0ampr=1amps=140610

8683179ampenc=1ampdsFamilyId=2474 2



8683179ampenc=1ampdsFamilyId=2484

o 162 were Employed partshytime (108 compared to 135 across District)

o 274 were Selfshyemployed (182 compared to 142 across District) o 32 were Unemployed (21 compared to 28 across District) o 30 were Fullshytime students (20 compared to 22 across District)

Economically Active shy All people usually resident in the area at the time of the 2011 Census aged 16 to 74 and who were economically active (either in employment or not in employment but seeking work and ready to start work within two weeks or waiting to start a job already obtained) As defined by ONS (2014)

bull 598 (398) were economically inactive o 264 were Retired (176 compared to 141 across District) o 173 were Students (115 compared to 43 across District) o 92 were Looking after home or family (61 compared to 43 across District)

o 6 were Longshyterm sick or disabled (04 compared to 22 across District)

o 27 were classified as Other (18 compared to 16 across District)

Economically Inactive shy All people usually resident in the area at the time of the 2011 Census aged 16 to 74 who were economically inactive (anyone who was not in employment and did not meet the criteria to be classified as unemployed) As defined by ONS (2014)

13 Occupations3

bull Of the 905 residents in the parish in employment and aged between 16 and 74

o 217 were Managers Directors and Senior Officials (240 compared to 156 across the District)

o 223 were Professional Occupations (246 compared to 188 across the District)

o 165 were Associate Professional and Technical Occupations (182 compared to 156 across the District)

o 105 were Administrative and Secretarial Occupations (116 compared to 128 across the District)

o 60 were Skilled Trades Occupations (66 compared to 112 across the District)

o 52 were Caring Leisure and Other Service Occupations (57 compared to 97 across the District)

o 25 were Sales and Customer Service Occupations (28 compared to 58 across the District)

o 22 were Process Plant and Machine Operatives (24 compared to 41 across the District)

o 36 were in Elementary Occupations (40 compared to 63 across the District)




3

14 Qualifications amp Skills4

bull Of the 1655 usual residents in the parish aged 16 and over o 152 possessed no qualifications (92 compared to 171 across the District)

o 168 possessed Level 1 qualifications5 (102 compared to 134 across the District)


o 33 possessed Apprenticeship qualifications7 (20 compared to 29 across the District)


o 710 possessed Level 4 and above qualifications9 (429 compared to 330 across the District)

o 69 possessed Other qualifications10 (42 compared to 39 across the District)

15 Industry of employment11

bull The 905 usual residents aged between 16 and 74 in employment are employed in the following industries

Industry Parish Figure 2011 (number and )


Agriculture Forestry and Fishing

7 (08) 257 (06)

Mining and Quarrying

0 (00) 43 (01)

Manufacturing 22 (24) 1912 (46) Electricity Gas 3 (03) 149 (04)

4



8683179ampenc=1ampdsFamilyId=2536 5 Level 1 qualifications cover 1-4 O LevelsCSEGCSEs (any grades) Entry Level Foundation

Diploma NVQ level 1 Foundation GNVQ BasicEssential Skills 6 Level 2 qualifications cover 5+ O Level (Passes)CSEs (Grade 1)GCSEs (Grades A-C) School

Certificate 1 A Level 2-3 AS LevelsVCEs IntermediateHigher Diploma Welsh Baccalaureate

Intermediate Diploma NVQ level 2 Intermediate GNVQ City and Guilds Craft BTEC

FirstGeneral Diploma RSA Diploma 13 Apprenticeship 7 All people usually resident in the area at the time of the 2011 Census aged 16 and over whose

highest qualification attained was Apprenticeship 8 Level 3 Qualifications cover 2+ A LevelsVCEs 4+ AS Levels Higher School Certificate

ProgressionAdvanced Diploma Welsh Baccalaureate Advance Diploma NVQ Level 3 Advanced

GNVQ City and Guilds Advanced Craft ONC OND BTEC National RSA Advanced Diploma 9 Level 4 and above qualifications cover Degree (BA BSc) Higher Degree (MA PhD PGCE) NVQ

Level 4-5 HNC HND RSA Higher Diploma BTEC Higher level Professional Qualifications

(Teaching Nursing Accountancy) 10 VocationalWork-related Qualifications Foreign Qualifications(Not stated level unknown) 11




Steam and Air Conditioning Supply Water Supply 2 (02) 256 (06) Construction 90 (99) 4043 (97) Wholesale amp Retail Trade

98 (108) 5602 (134)

Transport amp Storage 18 (20) 1965 (47) Accommodation and Food Service Activities

25 (28) 1488 (36)

Information and Communication

54 (60) 2085 (50)

Financial and Insurance Activities

137 (151) 3477 (83)

Real Estate Activities 29 (32) 744 (18) Professional Scientific and Technical Activities

139 (154) 3974 (95)

Administrative and Support Service Activities

36 (40) 2251 (54)

Public Administration and Defence

32 (35) 2495 (59)

Education 93 (103) 4166 (100) Human Health and Social Activities Work

69 (76) 4676 (112)

Arts Entertainment and Recreation

49 (54) 2162 ()

Activities of Householders as employers

2 (02) 88 (52)

Activities of Extraterritorial Organisations and Bodies

0 (00) 16 (003)

16 Housing12

bull There are 744 households located within the Parish bull 334 were ownershyoccupier households owned outright (449 compared to 362 across the District)

bull 282 were ownershyoccupier households owned with a mortgage or loan (379 compared to 397 across the District)

bull 0 were Shared Ownership (00 compared to 09 across the District)




12

bull 17 were Social Rented from Council (23 compared to 77 across the District)

bull 0 were Social Rented Other (00 compared to 31 across the District) bull 75 were Privately rented (106 compared to 110 across the District) bull 32 were Living Rent Free (43 compared to 14 across the District) A household is defined as one person living alone or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room sitting room or dining area As defined by ONS (2014)

There are 798 dwellings located within the Parish bull 574 of these are Detached housesbungalows (712 compared to 365 across the District)

bull 91 of these are Semishydetached housesbungalows (113 compared to 279 across the District)

bull 43 of these are Terraced houses (51 compared to 171 across the District)

bull 97 of these are Flatsmaisonettesapartments (120 compared to 209 across the District)

bull 1 of these are Caravans or other Mobile or Temporary Structures (01 compared to 09 across the District)

A dwelling is a unit of accommodation with all rooms including kitchen bathroom and toilet behind a door that only that household can use As defined by ONS (2014)

17 Transport13

Of the 744 households bull 58 households had no car or van (78 compared to 118 across District and 258 across England)

bull 203 households had 1 car or van (273 compared to 397 across District and 258 across England)

bull 297 households had 2 cars or vans (399 compared to 348 across District and 258 across England)


bull 70 households had 4 or more cars or vans (94 compared to 41 across the District and 321 across England)

18 Health14

bull The 2141 usual residents of the Parish were classified as having the following health status

o 1242 were in Very Good health (580 compared to 505 across the District)

13







o 682 were in Good health (319 compared to 344 across the District)

o 176 were in Fair health (82 compared to 114 across the District) o 37 were in Bad health (17 compared to 29 across the District) o 4 were in Very Bad health (02 compared to 09 across the District)

19 Biodiversity15

bull The following Sites of Special Scientific Interest exist within the Parish o Woldingham and Oxted Downs SSSI

bull The western half of the Parish is located in the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

bull No Local Nature Reserves exist within the Parish

bull The Parish contains areas identified by Natural England as Priority Habitats and are subject to Habitat Action Plans

o Underdetermined Grassland Priority Habitat ndash 2 areas To the south of Birch Wood in the west of the Parish To the east of Long Hill Road in the east of the Parish

o Lowland Calcareous Grassland Priority Habitat ndash 4 areas North of Orchard Farm in the east of the Parish Over the Oxted Tunnel in the south of the Parish To the south west of Horse Shaw in the south west of the Parish To the south of Little Hawke in the south of the Parish

o Traditional Orchard Priority Habitat ndash 3 areas To the east of The Cedars in the south of the Parish South of Limpsfield Road in the north of the Parish East of Butlers Dene in the north of the Parish

o Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat ndash Covers between a third and half of the Parishes land area with pockets of deciduous woodland being spread across the entire Parish

o Woodpasture and Parkland Priority Habitat ndash Covers the south west corner of the Parish from Birch Wood in the north to Marden Park in the south and Little Church Wood in the east to Worldrsquos End in the West

bull Entry Level plus High Level Stewardship Schemes ndash Na bull Entry Level Stewardship Schemes ndash Multiple areas in the western half of the Parish concentrated around Marden Park Whitefield Plantation Templehill Plantation The Rookery Church Road Farm The Bushes Rosedene Nursery Stony Hill and Round Shaw

bull Higher Level Stewardship Schemes ndash 3 areas 1 area to the south of Woldingham Garden Village to the north east of Long Hill road 2 areas on the southern boundary of the Parish at Tandrige Hill and South Hawke

bull Organic Entry Level plus Higher Level Stewardship Schemes ndash Na bull Organic Entry Level Stewardship Scheme ndash Na

15 httpmagicdefragovuk

bull Woodland Grant Scheme 1 ndash 7 areas Chaldons Farm Hanging Wood Forest Farm at Park View north of the Woldingham Golf Club 2 areas adjacent to Slines Oak and one area just north of Langlands

bull Woodland Grant Scheme 2 ndash 2 areas One at the North Downs Golf Course Clubhouse and one at the northern edge of Great Church Wood

bull Woodland Grant Scheme 3 shy Multiple areas concentrated around Horse Shaw The Rumps Stubbs Copse and Great Church Wood on the southern border of the Parish 2 areas in Woldingham Village and one area south of Little Church Wood

110 Heritage16

The English Heritage classification of Listed Buildings shows that the Parish of Woldingham contains the following Grade I listed buildings and structures including bull Na

The English Heritage classification of Listed Buildings shows that the Parish of Woldingham contains the following Grade II listed buildings and structures including bull NETHERN COURT HOUSE SLINES OAK ROAD WOLDINGHAM Woldingham Tandridge Surrey II

bull CHURCH OF ST PAUL STATION ROAD WOLDINGHAM Woldingham Tandridge Surrey II

bull bull SLYNES OAK SLINES OAK ROAD WOLDINGHAM Woldingham Tandridge Surrey II

bull LITTLESHAW INCLUDING OLYMPUS AND TERRACE WALLING CAMP ROAD Woldingham Tandridge Surrey II

Scheduled Monument bull Woldingham Fort a London mobilisation centre 500m south of Whistlers Wood Farm Woldingham Tandridge Surrey

Parks amp Gardens bull The Parish contains no registered Parks amp Gardens

16 httplistenglish-heritageorgukadvancedsearchaspx


a May 2010 The PC held a public workshop at its Annual Parish Meeting to establish a strategy for the village About 100 people attended Two of the best supported themes that emerged were taken into the current WNP (smaller accommodation units a coffee shop or meeting place etc) The results were disseminated in the Woldingham Magazine later that year

b January ndash October 2011 Through the Woldingham Magazine and the PC Newsletter the PC enlisted the support of residents for the Woldingham Character Assessment and Design Guidance on which the PC worked closely with Tandridge Council Uncertainty about the future of the Guidance within the Local Planing Framework served to engage much local support for involvement in neighbourhood planning

c Septembershy December 2011 In September the PC held a public meeting to disseminate the provisions of the Localism Bill This included the potential importance of neighbourhood planning in securing the future of local policies including the Design Guidance In October following a positive local reception for these ideas the PC sought the advice of Tandridge Council on the way forward

d January 2013 ndash current The PC involved residents by monthly progress reports in the Woldingham Magazine and in PC Minutes

e March ndash August 2013 A working group of councillors met on most Saturday mornings to plan the activities of the project Visits were made to village societies and events including the Village Fair the Village Picnic the Woldingham Wives and meetings were held with representatives of the Village Hall the Glebe etc Meetings were also held with professional advisers appointed by Locality and with other areas involved in developing neighbourhood plans

f May 2013 Following the decision to proceed with the Plan the new Chairman made a presentation on the Planrsquos objectives to an audience of residents at the Annual Parish Meeting This was an occasion to encourage residentsrsquo involvement in the coming months

g August ndash October 2013 The PC held a Residentsrsquo Survey covering all the potential themes of the proposed Plan including housing character facilities education transport and law and order Copies of the Survey were sent to every household a publicity campaign involved banners leaflets badges calling cards and web links to Survey Monkey through the village website and Twitter The resulting response rate was 503 in relation to the number of households Over 120 email addresses were gathered for future contact

h October 2013 An open Forum was held for residents to publicise the survey results and recruit volunteers to be involved in the next stages

After expert input on the next stages an interactive session was held to explore the themes supported by the Survey

i November 2013 Over 40 individuals and organisations were identified as engaged in businesses based in the village They were invited to a meeting to gather their views Despite a small turnout this event helped to engage local business opinion and add to the extensive response that had been gathered by means of the Survey

j JanuaryshyMarch 2014 Three projectfocus groups were set up to explore themes from the Residentsrsquo Survey The themes chosen were housing and character facilities transport law and order The groups brought together volunteers and Councillors in groups of around 12 members each for a rota of Saturday morning meetings Draft reports were compiled on potential policy issues and projects related to the themes These reports were publicised in the PC Newsletter

k May 2014 A Steering Group was formally set up and met monthly from June Its membership was drawn from residents who had contributed to the work of the project groups and parish councillors

l May 2014 APM

m June 2014 a new website was launched with the facility to publicise forthcoming events and key papers and reports about the Plan

n July 2014 an afternoon drop in session was held alongside a well attended flower show run by the Horticultural Society Visitors took part in a SWOT analysis Cards and banners and a quiz were used to publicise the new WNP website Emails were gathered with the help of a prize raffle

3 Community Survey As part of the process of consulting with residents over the development of the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan the Steering Group developed and undertook a survey in order to gather opinions and views on the issues which the document should prioritise

The survey was undertaken in September 2013

The Parish Council(s) have published the outcome of the survey in a separate document but a summary of the key findings is included here

a A total of 392 responses were received to the survey This represents a response rate to the survey of 503

b The greatest number of those responding (124 or 257) were aged between 51 and 60 whilst 101 (209) were aged between 61 and 70 84 (174) between 71 and 80 76 (157) between 41 and 50 51 (106) between 31 and 40 19 (39) aged over 85 17 (35) between 80 and 85 7 (14) between 21 and 30 3 (06) aged under 16 and 1 (02) between 16 and 20

c The most common number of persons living in responding households was 2 as identified by 178 or 456 of respondents whilst 75 (192) had 4 people living in their household 54 (139) had 3 45 (115) had e 3 (08) had 6 and 3 (08) had 7

d The greatest number of those responding (138 or 368) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the promotion of a balanced stock of housing types and sizes to meet demonstrated local needs whilst 121 (323) thought it was of Moderate Priority 99 (264) of Low Priority and 17 (45) couldnrsquot say

e The greatest number of those responding (291 or 756) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the protection of local Green Belt from new housing and large home extensions or ancillary buildings whilst 66 (171) thought it was of Moderate Priority 25 (65) of Low Priority and 3 (08) couldnrsquot say

f The greatest number of those responding (226 or 590) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the promotion of fast telecommunication services for householders and local businesses whilst 110 (287) thought it was of Moderate Priority 46 (120) of Low Priority and 1 (03) couldnrsquot say

g The greatest number of those responding (216 or 555) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the promotion of parking measures to assist residents to use Woldingham throughout the day whilst 121 (311) thought it was of Moderate Priority 48 (123) of Low Priority and 4 (10) couldnrsquot say

h The greatest number of those responding (219 or 570) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the preservation of general tree cover including established wooded hillsides whilst 133 (346) thought it was of Moderate Priority 29 (76) of Low priority and 3 (08) couldnrsquot say

i The greatest number of those responding (192 or 503) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the protection of gardens from tandem development (one house behind another sharing the same access) whilst 114 (298) thought it was of Moderate Priority 69 (181) of Low Priority and 7 (18) couldnrsquot say

j The greatest number of those responding (225 or 584) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the protection of gardens from backland development (combining back gardens to create large development plots) whilst 99 (257) thought it was of Moderate Priority 57 (148) of Low Priority and 4 (10) couldnrsquot say

k The greatest number of those responding (190 or 499) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to the stipulation of a minimum plot size that reflects the prevailing plot size in the surrounding area whilst 113 (297) thought it was of Moderate Priority 65 (171) of Low Priority and 13 (34) couldnrsquot say

l The greatest number of those responding (151 or 402) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give Moderate Priority to restrictions on the placement of telecommunication equipment whilst 109 (290) thought it was a High Priority 108 (287) of Low Priority and 8 (21) couldnrsquot say

m The greatest number of those responding (209 or 549) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to strengthening measures to combat pollution and nuisance (including noise lighting litter refuse burning fly tipping overgrown tress and hedges) whilst 136 (357) thought it was of Moderate Priority 34 (89) of Low Priority and 2 (05) couldnrsquot say

n The greatest number of those responding (229 or 611) felt that the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan should give High Priority to effective sanctions against both infringements of local planning policies prior to consent and of conditions imposed as part of consent whilst 109 (291) thought it was of Moderate Priority 24 (64) of Low Priority and 13 (35) couldnrsquot say

o The greatest number of those responding (79 or 204) had lived in Woldingham for less than 5 years 70 or 181 for between 31 and 50 years 62 or 160 for between 21 and 30 years 55 or 142 for between 11 and 15 years 54 or 140 for between 6 and 10 years 48 or 124 for between 16 and 20 years and 19 or 49 for 51 or more years

p The greatest number of those responding (290 or 755 of respondents) indicated that the reason that they had moved to Woldingham was for access to open countryside Other popular reasons were for a pleasant physical environment (as identified by 270 or 703 of those responding) for a lsquovillagersquo atmosphere (as identified by 247 respondents or 643 of those responding) and for quality housing (as identified by 202 or 526 of those responding)

q The greatest number of those responding (269 or 710) were very satisfied that they had chosen Woldingham as a place to live whilst 103 (272) were satisfied 6 (16) were not very satisfied and 1 (03) was not satisfied

r The greatest number of those responding (217 or 571) had members of their household relatives or friends that had moved away from Woldingham whilst 163 (429) did not

s The greatest number of those responding (117 or 563) had members of their household relatives or friends that had moved away from Woldingham in order to setshyup independent home Other popular responses were to begin jobcourse of study (identified by 87 or 418 of those responding) for affordable housing to buy (identified by 53 or 255 of those responding) and for suitable housing to buy (identified by 39 or 188 of those responding)

t The greatest number of those responding (131 or 340) indicated that they couldnrsquot say how long they currently envisaged staying in their current home whilst 91 (236) indicated 16 years or more 66 (171) for between 0 and 5 years 52 (135) for between 6 and 10 years and 45 (117) for between 11 and 15 years

u The greatest number of those responding (78 or 513) indicated that if they had moved home within Woldingham or were seriously considering doing so that the main reason for so doing would be to obtain a smaller house whilst 41 (270 of respondents to the question) indicated a larger house and 31 (204 of respondents to the question) indicated a house closer to the village centre

v The greatest number of those responding (242 or 649) indicated that no members of their household were likely to look for any additional domestic accommodation (by moving out) within the foreseeable future whilst 131 or 351 indicated that there were

w With regard to the need for additional domestic accommodation for members of their household in Woldingham either now or in the future the greatest number of respondents (55) indicated that their preference was for a smaller house than they currently occupy 49 for a detached and for a 3shy4 bedroom property 41 for a 1shy2 bedroom property and 33 for retirement housing units

x The greatest number of those responding (233 or 645) indicated that their work activity (both now and formerly) had not been based in Woldingham whilst 128 (355) indicated that it had

y With regard to work activity in Woldingham the greatest number of those responding (61 or 565 of those responding to the question) indicated that they worked from home whilst 54 (500 of those responding to the question) were selfshyemployed and 45 (417 of those responding to the question) indicated that work activity is current

z The greatest number of those responding (191 or 507) indicated that their household in Woldingham kept two cars for regular use by its members whilst 94 (249) kept one 65 (172) kept three 23 (61) kept 4 3 (08) kept six or more and 1 (03) kept five

aa The greatest number of those responding (250 or 661) indicated that no householders ever used the bus service whilst 69 (183) indicated that householders had used the service but where not currently using it 62 (164) indicated that householders would consider using it if the service were improved and 19 (50) indicated that householders were currently using the service

bb The greatest number of those responding (330 or 875) agreed with the assertion that Woldingham had a lsquospecial visual characterrsquo whilst 47 (125) did not

cc The greatest number of those responding (154 or 415) indicated that they were familiar with the local planning guidance for Woldingham whilst 132 (356) indicated that they were not very familiar 47 (127) very familiar and 38 (102) not at all familiar

dd The greatest number of those responding (205 or 550) indicated that they felt that the existing planning policies had provided some protection to Woldingham whilst 77 (206) indicated much 45 (121) couldnrsquot say 40 (107) little and 6 (16) none

ee The greatest number of those responding (281 or 772) indicated that there were not any children in their household for whom a primary or secondary school place has yet to be sought whilst 83 (228) indicated that there were

ff The greatest number of those responding (51 or 607 of respondents) indicated that they were planning to use a private secondary school for the children in their household whilst 39 (464 of respondents) indicated primary school (Woodlea) 22 (262 of respondents) indicated primary school private 16 (191 of respondents) indicated secondary school (Oxted) 8 (95 of respondents) 1 (12 of respondents) indicated other state primary school and 1 (12 of respondents) indicated a special educational establishment

ggThe greatest number of those responding (314 or 929) indicated that no member of their household had been a member of crime against

an individual in Woldingham in the last 10 years whilst 17 (50) couldnrsquot say and 7 (21) had at least one member who had been

hh The greatest number of those responding (245 or 679) indicated that no member of their household had been a victim of property crime in Woldingham in the last 10 years whilst 102 (283) indicated that at least one member of the household had and 14 (39) couldnrsquot say

ii The greatest number of those responding (264 or 777) indicated that no member of their household had been a victim of vehicle crime in Woldingham in the last 10 years whilst 61 (179) indicated that at least one member of the household had and 15 (44) couldnrsquot say

jj The greatest number of those responding (362 or 971) indicated that they support the idea of a Neighbourhood Plan whilst 11 (30) did not

4 Contributions from the Neighbourhood Plan project Groups

Housing and Character

The aim is to identify what provisions are needed to supplement Tandridge Councilrsquos present policies including the newlyshyadopted Local Plan Part 2 both to identify what kind of housing development would be right for Woldingham and to protect Woldinghamrsquos character and the Green Belt

Housing evidence base

About [90] of the area of Woldingham Parish is in the Metropolitan Green Belt with some [50] within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or classified as an Area of Great Landscape Value Woldinghamrsquos ldquourban areardquo is about 10 of the area of the parish 524 of the houses in the parish are in the Green Belt and 476 are in the ldquourban areardquo including 28 in the Conservation Area

Woldingham is a very desirable area to live in with its rural character and outstanding sylvan and downland landscapes located just outside the Greater London boundary with ease of access to London the M25 and Gatwick and Heathrow airports It has high land and house values Its development as a low density quality housing area from the late 19th century onwards has resulted in a very high proportion of detached houses (712 of dwellings at the 2011 Census compared with 329 in Surrey as a whole and 223 in England as a whole) All other categories of dwelling with the exception of nonshypurposeshybuilt flats (72) are well below the average proportions for Surrey and the UK as a whole The housing mix is skewed towards larger houses not only reflecting the origins of Woldinghamrsquos development but also the more recent trend for houses to be extended or replaced by larger dwellings

Woldinghamrsquos population (2140 at the 2011 Census) has been declining ndash by about 10 since the 2001 Census As at the 2011 Census the proportion of over 65 year olds at 18 was slightly higher than in Surrey (172) or in England (163)

Demand for housing in Woldingham Parish is marketshyled and reflects what gives a higher yield Housing in Tandridge District is much less affordable than the UK national average the ratio of median house prices to median incomes is 246 in Tandridge against 154 in the UK 65 of houses in Woldingham are in Bands G and H for Council Tax against 263 in Surrey and 41 in the UK Factors that tend to dampen local demand for housing that is more affordable include

bull the small and declining base of commercial activity within the parish numbers of employees within the parish are limited with effects on demand at the relevant cost level

bull the high land prices and parallel high house prices bull the lack of suitable accommodation bull poor local transport in terms of buses and the road network in contrast to the good train service to London and

bull limited access to schooling (singleshyclass entry to the village primary school no public sector secondary school in the parish)

Planning restrictions to protect the character of Woldingham have also inhibited any rebalancing of the housing mix In the urban area restrictions have applied to require minimum plot sizes resulting from subdivisions to maintain the spacious low density character of the village That character has also been supported by Tandridge District Councilrsquos other policies and the Woldingham Village Design Statement and Woldingham Design Guidance both adopted as Supplementary Design Guidance And the original Gilford covenants from the late 19th century have restricted commercial uses of domestic housing that might have generated demand for more affordable housing In the Green Belt policy has just moved in the opposite liberalising direction but with similar effect Tandridge District Councilrsquos previous policy to protect small dwellings in the Green Belt has been revoked without replacement against the protests of the Parish Council in the recently adopted Local Plan Part 2

While much of Woldinghamrsquos housing is out of reach for people on modest incomes the incidence of overcrowding is substantially lower and for housing without central heating lower than for Surrey and for the UK as a whole In recognition of the constraints on new housing there are no specific housing targets for Woldingham Parish The extent of new building construction has been very low

Demand for new or replacement houses Is thus mainly focused on larger executiveshytype dwellings But there is moderate demand for smaller accommodation units of market housing in particular from older residents looking for opportunities to downshysize without having to move away from Woldingham In the Survey the idea of promoting a lsquobalanced housing stockrsquo gained significantly more lsquohigh priorityrsquo support from the over 50s (42) than under 50s (18) At least half of those who said they had moved home within Woldingham or were seriously considering doing so were looking for a smaller house Reasons for leaving Woldingham include looking for suitable housing shy to set up an independent home (57) or to meet retirement housing needs (15) Top rated preferences for future housing included not only both detached housing but also smaller housing than currently occupied and retirement housing with Woldingham often being a preferred location

Confirming these views smaller units that were already available or have been built are popular and have resold well The market for smaller units of market housing is demonstrated by occasional applications and developments And when the Parish Council made a ldquocall for sitesrdquo for such accommodation a few years ago two specific areas were brought forward for consideration

Housing Recommendations of the Focus Group

The Focus Group noted that scope for acceptable development of new housing in Woldingham Parish is limited as a result of the points set out above The specific constraints can be summarised as follows

1 Residents have given strong support to the protection of the Green Belt ndash about 90 of the parish shy from new housing or large extensions 911 of responses to the Survey gave this high or medium priority That protection is also established in principle in the National Planning Policy Framework and the policies in Tandridge District Councilrsquos Local Plan

2 As recognised by the Woldingham Character Assessment SPD of 2011 much of Woldinghamrsquos smaller ldquourban areardquo generally has a spacious low density character Residents were also concerned to protecting that character from overshydevelopment Protection from backshyland development tandem development and subshydivision of plots below the size prevailing in the area were rated as of high or medium priority by 781 827 and 773 of responders respectively These protections are now included in Tandridge District Councilrsquos Local Plan Part 2 in Policy DP8 although they are qualified

3 Infrastructure constraints would make significant new housing development inappropriate and unacceptable Roads (in many cases unadopted) have limited capacity parking in The Crescent at Woodlea Primary School and at the station is already overstretched medical facilities are not available in the village Woodlea School has limited capacity (as demonstrated by difficulties in enabling children of residents to get places in 2013) and main drainage is not available in substantial areas of the village

Within these major constraints the Survey results indicated some concern to promote a balanced stock of housing types and sizes to meet local needs 66 of responses to the Survey gave this high or medium priority High land values are a further severe constraint on any additional provision of affordable housing given that the more substantial development schemes that could be required to include affordable dwellings as a condition for permission would be inappropriate in Woldingham for the reasons set out above

It is however recommended that the Neighbourhood Plan should facilitate provision of additional smaller units of market housing to meet demand for downshysizing

Strengths bull Woldingham is a very desirable place to live bull Semishyrural location within the M25 33 minutes from London by a good rail service good access to airports

bull Housing generally lowshydensity and good quality responding to residentsrsquo desires

Weaknesses bull Infrastructure will not support development beyond very limited inshyfilling bull Balance of housing strongly skewed towards larger dwellings exacerbated by a trend to extend or replace dwellings with larger ones

bull Shortage of smaller dwellings for downshysizing bull High land and house values make housing unaffordable for some

Opportunities bull [possible redevelopment of brown field sites] bull Facilitation of smaller housing units in response to demand from residents in particular close to the centre of the village

Threats bull Woldinghamrsquos desirability and high values leading to very strong pressure for inappropriate development

bull Individual developments that subdivide plots inappropriately increase housing density and spoil Woldinghamrsquos spacious character

bull Housing numbers imposed by others that do not respect Woldinghamrsquos character or the limitations on its infrastructure

bull Larger scale developments that threaten the Green Belt or AONB

Character Evidence base

The previous section on Housing has already mentioned much of the evidence relevant to Woldinghamrsquos special character as a village surrounded by Green Belt (including AONB and AGLV) in a setting of downland landscapes and wooded hillsides and recognised for its spacious sylvan environment The Survey indicated strong local support for protection of these characteristics which help to make Woldingham such a desirable place to live in Apart from policies to protect Woldingham from inappropriate or dense development access to the surrounding countryside by footpaths and bridleways and the special aspects of the treescape and downland countryside including wildlife and Sites of Special Scientific Interest are important parts of the rural environment which gives Woldingham its special character

Character Recommendations of the Focus Group

The Focus Group recommends that the Neighbourhood Plan should include provisions to provide further protection for the character of the village and parish in accordance with the Survey results Specifically

1 Protection of the Green Belt The National Planning Policy Framework requires extensions of houses to be ldquonot disproportionaterdquo and replacements to be ldquonot materially larger than the building they replacerdquo The recent trend has been for extensions and replacements to be larger than used to be permitted only a few years ago Protection of the Green Belt from new housing and large extensions was given high or medium

priority by 911 of respondents to the Survey The Neighbourhood Plan should seek to define ldquonot disproportionaterdquo and ldquonot materially largerrdquo more clearly for the purposes of Woldinghamrsquos Green Belt areas to resist the trend towards larger extensions and replacements

2 The following issues received strong support in the Survey and it is recommended that they should be addressed by specific policies in the Neighbourhood Plan

21 Preservation of general tree cover including established ldquoWooded Hillsidesrdquo (918 high or medium priority in Survey responses) 22 [Strengthening of measures to combat pollution and nuisance (including noise excessive lighting litter refuse burning fly tipping overgrown trees and hedges (904 high or medium priority in Survey responses] 23 Effective sanctions against both infringements of local planning policies prior to consent and of conditions imposed as part of consent (900 high or medium priority in Survey responses)

3 The spacious character of the urban area was until recently protected by a requirement that plots resulting from subshydivision of curtilages should not be less than 02 hectare This was revoked when Tandridge District Councilrsquos Local Plan Part 2 was adopted in July 2014 Consideration should be given to reintroducing this quantified provision in the Neighbourhood Plan but focused more clearly on those parts of the village where it has had and should continue to have an important effect on the spaciousness and character of the immediately surrounding area That focus can then allow scope for facilitating smaller units of market housing in appropriate location in the village Consideration should also be given to strengthening the provisions against backland development and tandem development of garden land in Tandridge District Councilrsquos policy DP8 in particular if those provisions are subject to legal challenge

4 Selected points in the existing Woldingham Village Design Statement and Woldingham Design Guidance SPDs should be given enhanced status as policies in the Neighbourhood Plan so that they have full policy status equal with Tandridge Councilrsquos policies are not so easily overlooked or overruled useful analysis has been done on the detail underlying this point

5 Consideration should also be given to facilitating improvement of The Crescent both in terms of its visual character and to bring more life to this centre of the village

Strengths bull Distinctive character with generally lowshydensity housing on spacious plots and lack of crowding

bull Rural setting with high quality sylvan and downland landscapes (about 90 Green Belt of which about 50 in the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or an Area of Great Landscape Value)

bull Abundance of trees and vegetation screening buildings bull No main roads making the village quiet and calm in relative terms bull Good access to countryside by footpaths and bridleways bull A small number of Grade II listed buildings (St Paulrsquos Church Nethern Court LittleshawOlympus Slynes Oak)

bull Conservation Area around The Green

Weaknesses bull Poor quality of design or execution of some developments bull Extensions that do not complement buildings satisfactorily bull Excessive extensions made under Permitted Development especially where the principal elevation does not front a highway

Opportunities bull Enhancing the protection for the character of Woldingham and the Green Belt

bull Small scale development that is compatible with character and the Green Belt in particular for smaller accommodation units

bull [redevelopment of brownshyfield sites in Green Belt]

Threats bull Inappropriate development that harms character bull Backland or tandem development or subdivision of plots below the size prevailing in the area increasing the density of housing and destroying the spacious character of Woldingham

bull Inappropriate and unauthorised activity or excessive development in the Green Belt

bull Inappropriate or unlawful felling of trees

Transport Law and Order Group

Woldingham is a predominantly rural parish served by a network of both adopted and unadopted roads Residents rely to a considerable extent for retail services on vehicular access to neighbouring hubs (such as Oxted Caterham and Croydon) and many commute by train to London for work and leisure One of the main attractions of the village is the immediately surrounding countryside which benefits from a number of footpaths and bridleways Woldingham has a low crime rate which is nevertheless monitored closely This project group analysed and discussed in detail the issues for transport law and order identified in the Residentsrsquo Survey Those issues were generally endorsed It was accepted that actions to deliver solutions to relevant problems were to a great extent in hands of Surrey Highways Agency and Surrey Police with whom further liaison would be required

The Village survey indicated that Woldingham is and perceived to be a safe place to live The majority of reported incidents are to vehicles and take place in or near the station The Village run Speed Watch has had a good effect on reducing speed in the village and the Neighbourhood Watch scheme is active and is available to every house hold in every road The main concern is the lack of street lighting especially around the station but this is an emotive subject and people currently wish to preserve our country ambiance The police are very visible with a weekly surgery held in the village store and a bishymonthly Action Forum

Summary of notifiable offences 10109 to 311213

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Burglary ndash Dwelling 8 12 15 13 12

Burglary ndash non dwelling 9 7 7 13 14

Motor Vehicle ndash theft damage stolen 20 27 22 24 19

Theft amp handling stolen goods 11 9 15 12 19

Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72

For transport the main recommendations made by the group for future development were the following

bull Regular maintenance of road surfaces paths and verges and efficient

drainage (including areas affected by The Bourne)

bull Action to control speeding traffic including speed restrictions and

speed checks

bull Reducing traffic risk at a number of perceived danger spots such as

the junction at the bottom of Bug Hill

bull Improved parking facilities at the Station and The Crescent

bull Review the scope for improved public transport including the existing

bus service and taxi facilities

bull Introduce new cycle paths where possible

Strengths bull Mostly quiet roads compared with neighbouring parishes

bull Good vehicular access to surrounding districts

bull Good access to footpaths and bridleways through surrounding

countryside

bull Private road committees responsible for the maintenance of a number

of the unadopted roads

Weaknesses bull Bus service restricted and poorly used

bull Railway station at some distance from the village and frequently

congested

bull Congestion in The Crescent

bull A number of perceived danger spots exacerbated by poorly

maintained boundaries

bull Speeding traffic on a number of through roads

bull Roads generally narrow and unsuitable for rising volumes of traffic

bull Limited capacity of roadside drainage

Opportunities bull Improved parking capacity at the station and The Crescent

bull Introduction of more traffic calming measures

bull Improved public transport

bull Recontouring of junctions perceived as dangerous

Threats bull Increasing traffic arising from through traffic and further residential and

business development

bull Increasing congestion at the station and in The Crescent

bull No improvement in bus services

For law and order the main recommendations were bull Reinforce measures to educate residents about crime prevention

particularly home security

bull Continue and reinforce the existing Neighbourhood Watch system

bull Review the current jurisdiction of the PCSO

bull Examine the possibility of introducing selective street lighting for

example on Station Road

Strengths bull Low existing crime rate

bull Well supported and well run Neighbourhood Watch system

bull Regular visits by PCSO

Weaknesses bull Residents not sufficiently safety conscious

Opportunities bull Maintain and reinforce Neighbourhood Watch system (including

educative role)

bull Maintain and reinforce PCSOrsquos operations

bull Review scope for street lighting

Facilities

The Facilities Group considered (1) the facilities currently available to residents (range and quality) (2) current gaps in provision (3) development to meet the future needs and preferences of residents (4) facilitation of development through a Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan (5) exploration of options for development projects (nature sponsorship location funding etc) Some projects were also suggested as ways forward

Facilities available to residents (range and quality) By lsquofacilityrsquo is meant a piece of land or a structure that is used to give residents local access to an activity that is relevant to their work or leisure

Woldingham Village Facilities and Organisations

Venues for Meetings and Activities

Woldingham Village Hall Woldingham Village Club Scout Hut Cricket Pavilion Tennis Club Pavilion St Agatharsquos Church St Pauls Church Room Garden Village Peace Hall North Downs Golf Club Woldingham Golf Club Woodlea School Woldingham School

Places to Eat and Drink

Woldingham Village Club North Downs Golf Club Woldingham Golf Club Knights Garden Centre

Clubs and Organisations

123 Club Woldingham Nursery Tennis Club Brownies Rainbows Beavers Scouts Zumba Pilates Badminton Club Yoga classes Golf Clubsshy North DownsWoldingham Cricket Club Horticultural Society Pantomime and Back Stage Garden Village Club Woldingham Parish Council Woldingham Association Woldingham Players ndash theatre Woldingham Wives Fellowship Woldingham History Society Bridge Club Action Aid shy Luncheon Club Woldingham Good Neighbours Scheme

Retailers Village Store Post Office Saddlery Beauty Salon Catering Company Bespoke Windows Estate Agent Garage shy car maintenance Knightrsquos Garden Centre Aquatics (Knights Garden Centre)

Outdoor Venues The Glebe Golf Clubs Tennis courts Church Woods Garden Village ndash Green Village Green Riding Stables

Communications Woldingham Magazine Neighbourhood Watch

The Survey reveals plenty of scope to improve village facilities Only two were rated lsquogoodrsquo more often than lsquofairrsquo shy those for outdoor sport (by far) and those for informal socialising Many others were rated only lsquofairrsquo Most often rated lsquofairrsquo were public entertainment and daily shopping

Most often rated lsquopoorrsquo were the facilities for eating out daily shopping young people over 16 indoor sport commercial services and healthmedical care Facilities most often described as lsquononshyexistentrsquo were those for healthmedical care eating out reading and study business meetings and elderly care

Among the top six facilities that residents marked most relevant to their households those least often ranked lsquogoodrsquo included eating out daily shopping and healthmedical care Those marked most often as lsquononshyexistentrsquo included facilities for healthmedical care business meetings reading and study eating out elderly care and disabled persons

Current gaps in provision

By lsquogaprsquo is meant the perceived absence or shortage of a facility which could be of benefit to residents if provided locally

The Survey responses have pinpointed perceived gaps They have also gathered some evidence on whether respondents would be likely to use new provision that filled the gap The replies are not a good predictor of actual behaviour but are at least an indicator of the perceived relevance of lsquomissingrsquo facilities to local households

The suggestions for additional facilities tended to cluster round the terms lsquopubshyshopshyrestaurantshyclubrsquo However the numbers making these suggestions were relatively low Others say that the facilities are largely there but the perception of them is an issue Are they known accessible and attractive to residents The survey results suggest otherwise So we have been considering how current providers could lsquonetworkrsquo to attract more local custom for example by joint concessions and better publicity Even the signposting of where local facilities are could be improved We have also begun to explore what kind of additional provision would complement not duplicate what is here and would be sustainable Is there room for a lsquocoffee shoprsquo in an accessible spot Can we make it easier for lsquopopuprsquo ventures and good quality specialist fresh food retailers to visit the village Linked to this is an emerging discussion about lsquoregenerating The Crescentrsquo

There was support for more lsquoeating and drinkingrsquo facilities from those with experience of working in Woldingham They were asked for ideas for new business opportunities Half of the forty respondents focused on food and drink lsquocoffee shop bistro restaurant (quality) food outlet wine bar pub (family friendlygastro) farm shop patisserie cateringrsquo The sale of alcohol was envisaged but mainly in a family or food related context shy lsquopubrsquo was a minority suggestion (Other suggestions related to widening the range of

shops in the Crescent art and craft workshops locations for business premises and facilities for healthcare young people and senior citizens)

When all respondents were asked for suggestions for additional facilities of the 175 responses 38 (nearly 22) supported a pubbistro type of establishment The terms pubrestaurant were often used together A restaurant was suggested 25 times (14) These figures are open to interpretation The suggestions could be taken as indicative of a need or ignored as representing under 10 of all respondents It would be interesting to know if these residents are fully aware of the Village Club or Knights and if so how they would evaluate them as relevant to this perceived need

An analysis of the facilities response chart highlights the following views Several facilities were seen as good or fair but did not rank in the top six for relevance to the household Among the top six facilities marked most relevant to households those least often ranked good included eating out daily shopping and healthmedical care Those marked most often as nonshyexistent included facilities for healthmedical care business meetings reading and study eating out elderly care and disabled persons

How good is the range of amenities and leisure facilities available for public use (including by subscription) in Woldingham

ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash

Fair ndash Poor ndash Do not exist ndash

Total Respondents

ndash

1 Daily shopping 5502 1368 4742 3131 334 315 2 Eating out 5443 398 1131 4251 4006 320 3 Outdoor sport 5230 5822 3224 296 066 286 4 Informal socialising 5034 3414 3310 2241 621 278 5 General fitness 4907 3197 3829 2268 558 265 6 Healthmedical care 4696 1150 1022 2460 5367 313 7 Public entertainment 4623 2192 4521 2089 788 280 8 Indoor sport 3595 1694 3264 3843 1074 239 9 Commercial services 3081 859 3182 4343 1313 192 10 For children 5shy16 2988 915 4207 3415 915 155 11 Reading and study 2687 597 1642 2736 4726 195 12 For children under 5 2516 3208 4465 1006 755 150

13 For yg people over 16

2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161

14 For elderly care 1837 272 2381 3946 2789 138 15 Business meetings 1609 805 1437 2414 50 168 16 For disabled persons 902 082 2459 4426 2541 116


ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash

1 Outdoor sport 5230 5822 3224 296 066 286 2 Informal socialising 5034 3414 3310 2241 621 278 3 for shy 5s 2516 3208 4465 1006 755 150 4 General fitness 4907 3197 3829 2268 558 265 5 Public entertainment 4623 2192 4521 2089 788 280 6 Indoor sport 3595 1694 3264 3843 1074 239 7 Daily shopping 5502 1368 4742 3131 334 315 8 Healthmedical care 4696 1150 1022 2460 5367 313 9 For 5shy16 2988 915 4207 3415 915 155 10 Commercial services 3081 859 3182 4343 1313 192 11 Business meetings 1609 805 1437 2414 50 168 12 Reading and study 2687 597 1642 2736 4726 195 13 Eating out 5443 398 1131 4251 4006 320 14 For elderly care 1837 272 2381 3946 2789 138 15 For disabled persons 902 082 2459 4426 2541 116 16 For over 16 2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161

Some issues identified by the facilities group

Residents may not be fully aware of the facilities already available to them or they may have discounted them whether or not justifiably and they might do well to try them out (Project a)

The village is to some extent a lsquodormitoryrsquo The demands of long employment hours and travel leave residents little time for socializing after work There is also a tendency to go elsewhere for recreation exercise shopping and other facilities We may be at an early stage in addressing the needs and interests of the increasing number of residents who live longer and may not live near the centre of the village where most facilities are located

Local providers are a mix of social enterprises and commercial ventures Especially where existing facilities are underused adding more of the same is going to be commercially unwelcome But increasing the overall volume of users could benefit all (Project b)

There is a perceived danger in improving the attraction of facilities to the extent that they become a magnet for external users with consequences for the character of the village parking overload noise and vandalism On the other hand existing facilities are already used by nonshyresidents and would not survive on local patronage alone (station school sporting clubs estate agent etc)

Some key facilities eg in the Village Hall are perceived as regularly not being accessible to residents because they are in daily use by paying users Is there a way to meet conflicting demands Is there scope for expanding premises If so what would the priorities be for additional accommodation

The group also noted (a) a lack of volunteer help to sustain what is already provided and (b) limited access to investment for the future Revenue can be improved by increasing the number of paying users but there is limited scope for capital expenditure to fund expansion renovation or relocation of premises unless it can come from loans or redeployment of existing assets

Local planning policy

The purpose of the Neighbourhood Plan is to identify and facilitate development priorities that meet residentsrsquo needs over the period of the Plan (15 years) and to help preserve the character of the village against inappropriate development The Plan will most likely include priorities for housing and might also include priorities for leisure There is scope for the Plan to articulate support for types of leisure development in specified areas Once projects are identified it will be clearer what role the Plan might play However it is safe to say that developing leisure facilities would involve consideration of common planning issues such as location appearance parking noise lighting licensing of premises change of use etc

Projects

Assuming that there is no unexpected inward investment in the offing the ability to improve facilities appears to rest with the current key providers Nothing will happen without their initiative but the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan have a facilitating and enabling role

Project a Build up the patronage of local facilities by the local community Example publicise available facilities eg for eating out as a joint nonshycompetitive venture among all providers Look at the potential of a lsquomembership cardrsquo approach to attracting residents to use a block of facilities

Project b explore the idea of a lsquocommunity hubrsquo in a creative way A virtual hub Or not necessarily a single locus for all facilities but a network of complementary facilities Look at the potential of a lsquomembership cardrsquo approach to attracting residents to use a block of facilities Seek external partners (eg a coffee shop franchise) Find out if there are options for relocationregrouping of facilities to increase their appeal We could seek external assessment and advice on what we could do We could visit innovative villages which have gained a good reputation for their community facilities

Project c employ a consultant to advise on redevelopment relocation and enhancement of sites to improve use by residents Fresh thinking is needed For example if the tennis courts and a refreshmentcatering area were coshylocated would lsquoclub lifersquo benefit If high quality modern changing and social

facilities were available for the use of all participant sports around The Glebe would local participation rise If the Village Hall took on the role of a lsquocommunity hubrsquo along the lines that other villages have adopted how would it develop its premises and activities to make this a reality How could it accommodate new activities fitted to this role without displacing existing sources of revenue What facilities identified by the Survey as gaps are best suited to be included in the hub (indoor exercise ITstudy centre medical centre meeting rooms etc)

Project d approach the health authorities and direct providers to explore the possibility of establishing some healthcare services in the village The number of older people requiring health and social care is predicted to rise by over 60 over the next 15 years Travel to East Surrey hospital is difficult and surgeries in surrounding towns are overcrowded

We have contacted the East Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group Health services once did exist here and in theory the new commissioning arrangements should be responsive to community needs especially as in this case the needs of an ageing population The main obstacles are the current prioritising factors One (equality of opportunity) does not favour areas with low social deprivation indicators and another (cost effectiveness) tends to favour centralised facilities Nevertheless there may be scope for public health input (preventative and mental health) and for commercial providers subject to appropriate facilities being locally available

Education

Well over 70 respondents said that they would be looking for a school place for a child in their household The majority of those seeking a primary place would plan to use Woodlea rather than a school elsewhere including a private school The majority seeking a secondary place would plan to use a private school rather than a state school The implication is that local demand for places at Woodlea will be sustained but that local state secondary school places will not be in high demand from the village

The theme of education was not given priority for exploration in the project group stage but there was acknowledgement that access to schooling is a key factor in whether a community can remain sustainable Fewer families with young children will come here or will remain here without access to a good primary school During 2013 changes in the admissions policy of the school held out the prospect that more local children would obtain places at Woodlea School The good links that exist between the school and village organisations (eg the use of the Glebe for sporting activities) need to be expanded as part of the Neighbourhood Plan

Facilities SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses The Glebe facilities for outdoor sport Facilities for healthcare almost non The Village Hall existent Golf clubs easily accessible Perception some recreational The open countryside and the facilities not having the right image footpath network Limited range of shops The wealth of organisations and Lack of lsquocoffee shoprsquo type meeting societies providing for residentsrsquo places interests Lack of small meeting rooms A distinct compact village centre Village hall lsquobookedrsquo Opportunities Threats Build coshyoperation among the Attractions of better facilities in other providers to increase the number of areas local users Loss of time for recreation due to Give better publicity to what is here increasing demands of working life on Modernise tired and limited premises commuters and make them more attractive to Not enough people in village to those who would go elsewhere sustain some types of provision Add to the range of facilities to fill Loss of The Cresent as a commercial gaps now identified centre

Education SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses Good local state primary school Good independent secondary schools in the area

Limited access to local state primary school Lack of access to a good local state secondary school No library or media centre

Opportunities Threats Develop a learning and study facility as part of any extended accommodation project

Deterrent to families with primary age children if canrsquot access local school Growing shortage of school places

Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan Detailed Annex ndash Summary Paper

August 2014

Contents

1 Selected Parish statistics


3 Community Survey

4 Contributions from Neighbourhood Plan Project Groups


11 Demographics1






0 to 4 93 (43) 4886 (59) 5 to 7 52 (24) 2895 (35) 8 to 9 42 (20) 1820 (22) 10 to 14 241 (113) 5391 (65) 15 58 (27) 1084 (13)






1














13 Occupations3














3














7 (08) 257 (06)


0 (00) 43 (01)


4

















98 (108) 5602 (134)


25 (28) 1488 (36)


54 (60) 2085 (50)


137 (151) 3477 (83)


139 (154) 3974 (95)


36 (40) 2251 (54)


32 (35) 2495 (59)


69 (76) 4676 (112)


49 (54) 2162 ()


2 (02) 88 (52)


0 (00) 16 (003)

16 Housing12







12









17 Transport13






18 Health14



13









19 Biodiversity15

















110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education











11 Demographics1






0 to 4 93 (43) 4886 (59) 5 to 7 52 (24) 2895 (35) 8 to 9 42 (20) 1820 (22) 10 to 14 241 (113) 5391 (65) 15 58 (27) 1084 (13)






1














13 Occupations3














3














7 (08) 257 (06)


0 (00) 43 (01)


4

















98 (108) 5602 (134)


25 (28) 1488 (36)


54 (60) 2085 (50)


137 (151) 3477 (83)


139 (154) 3974 (95)


36 (40) 2251 (54)


32 (35) 2495 (59)


69 (76) 4676 (112)


49 (54) 2162 ()


2 (02) 88 (52)


0 (00) 16 (003)

16 Housing12







12









17 Transport13






18 Health14



13









19 Biodiversity15

















110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education

















13 Occupations3














3














7 (08) 257 (06)


0 (00) 43 (01)


4

















98 (108) 5602 (134)


25 (28) 1488 (36)


54 (60) 2085 (50)


137 (151) 3477 (83)


139 (154) 3974 (95)


36 (40) 2251 (54)


32 (35) 2495 (59)


69 (76) 4676 (112)


49 (54) 2162 ()


2 (02) 88 (52)


0 (00) 16 (003)

16 Housing12







12









17 Transport13






18 Health14



13









19 Biodiversity15

















110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education























7 (08) 257 (06)


0 (00) 43 (01)


4

















98 (108) 5602 (134)


25 (28) 1488 (36)


54 (60) 2085 (50)


137 (151) 3477 (83)


139 (154) 3974 (95)


36 (40) 2251 (54)


32 (35) 2495 (59)


69 (76) 4676 (112)


49 (54) 2162 ()


2 (02) 88 (52)


0 (00) 16 (003)

16 Housing12







12









17 Transport13






18 Health14



13









19 Biodiversity15

















110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education











98 (108) 5602 (134)


25 (28) 1488 (36)


54 (60) 2085 (50)


137 (151) 3477 (83)


139 (154) 3974 (95)


36 (40) 2251 (54)


32 (35) 2495 (59)


69 (76) 4676 (112)


49 (54) 2162 ()


2 (02) 88 (52)


0 (00) 16 (003)

16 Housing12







12









17 Transport13






18 Health14



13









19 Biodiversity15

















110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education


















17 Transport13






18 Health14



13









19 Biodiversity15

















110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education












19 Biodiversity15

















110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education













110 Heritage16






















l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education























l May 2014 APM




































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education











































































































2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





Other 8 6 5 7 8

Total 53 59 64 69 72





speed checks










countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education











countryside





congested


























educative role)



Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education












Facilities

























ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education






















ranked by relevant

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash



2216 060 1557 6048 1976 161



ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education











ranked by good

Relevant to

household ndash

Good ndash


Total Respondents

ndash











Projects








Education














Projects








Education













Education










WNP13 Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan Detailed Annex August … · e Sch ˙Certificate7 Pr ression/A...

Documents

Transcript of WNP13 Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan Detailed Annex August … · e Sch ˙Certificate7 Pr ression/A...