Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
Chardstock Parish Council – Neighbourhood Plan
Sustainability Report: Chardstock Village and Associated Hamlets
(March 2015)
A factual review of the parish's capacity to support sustainable development and the limits thereon in
the context of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)
Contents:
Section.
Subject
Page
1.
Introduction
2
2.
Summary of key parish information
3
3.
Services, facilities and infrastructure
4
3.1
Transport
4
3.2
Roads
4
3.3
Services and facilities
4
3.4
Utilities and drainage
4
3.5
Flooding
5
3.6
Telephone and broadband
5
3.7
Employment
5
4.
Chardstock, sustainable development and the National Planning Policy Framework
5
5.
Summary
6
6.
Conclusion
6
7.
Regulatory
7
8.
Information sources
7
9.
Glossary
7
10.
Acknowledgements
7
11.
Appendices – Evidence:
8
A 1: Roads and car ownership
8
A 2: Road condition, drainage and flooding
9
A 3: Age distribution of population
10
A 4: House prices and affordability
10
11
A 5: A snapshot of the housing market in Chardstock (March 2015)
Compiled and published for Chardstock Parish Council as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process, March 2015.
page 1 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
1. Introduction
1.1
In 2012, there were some important changes to government planning policy and the regulation of
town and country planning. They have affected Chardstock parish in three main ways.
a) The introduction of Neighbourhood Plans as a vehicle for enabling communities like Chardstock to
exercise greater control over the future shape of development in the places where they live.
b) The Local Planning Authority (LPA) – East Devon District Council – imposing a new-build allocation
of 10 unsustainable houses on the parish, as part of its new Local Plan. These have all been built.
c) Planning law changes giving developers greater freedom over what they build and where, not
limited to imposed build quotas.
1.2
The local effects of these changes have been distorted because East Devon District Council is 3 years
late in producing a Local Plan, which should be the main instrument of control over development, and
Chardstock has been subject to a stream of development plans, some potentially damaging (e.g. to
the village's Conservation Area). The community has been left without adequate defence against
inappropriate, unsustainable development. The District Council has set itself some exacting housebuilding targets and the financial penalties for losing a planning appeal are severe, so there is a
tendency to take the line of least resistance with developers, whatever the local consequences.
1.3
The main authority governing planning decisions is the National Planning Policy Framework 2012
(NPPF) and guidance, to be supplemented by the Local Plan, once approved. Currently, matters are
confused by a lack of clarity about whether a given decision is governed by "saved" policies from the
now obsolete East Devon Local Plan 1995–2011 or by policies contained in the still unapproved and
"emerging" New East Devon Local Plan 2013–31. It is unusual to receive a clear explanation for why a
given planning regime has been chosen in any particular case.
1.4
The NPPF introduced the principle of a "presumption in favour of sustainable development".
"Sustainable" is not closely defined, but, from the narrative in Section 7 of the NPPF (Achieving
sustainable development), it may be inferred that, to be sustainable, development must:
 meet local needs, be on a suitable site and have access to/provide necessary local infrastructure
(e.g. modern roads, drainage, public transport, medical services and broadband) (1st bullet point);
 provide access to a broad range of services and facilities which are available to all members of a
community (whether or not they are car owners) (2nd bullet point);
 be appropriate to the local built environment and not damage heritage assets (2nd and 3rd bullet
points);
 propose buildings of a suitably high standard of design and construction (3rd bullet point);
 not degrade the local natural environment and/or mitigate any negative environmental effects (3rd
bullet point);
 positively support efforts to meet climate change and low-carbon imperatives (e.g. by having
access to adequate public transport, rather than just adding to the number of private cars in use)
(3rd bullet point).
Most of these issues should be covered by an approved Local Plan, which should also set sufficiently
high standards to be credible with the people most affected – local communities. The lack of an
approved Local Plan means that neither condition applies in East Devon at the time of writing.
1.5
In September 2012, Chardstock Parish Council decided to produce a Neighbourhood Plan. It will be
broadly compliant with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and will direct sustainable development
to meeting the needs of the local community. The main aims of the Neighbourhood Plan are to:
a) set out the community's view of its own development needs;
b) define the development management policies needed to focus any development activity on those
needs;
c) provide an assessment of the parish's ability to sustain development in the light of the derived
criteria in 1.4 above;
d) be produced in a manner designed to maximise local community involvement, consensus and
prioritisation.
This sustainability review meets the third of these objectives.
page 2 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
2. Summary of key parish information
Chardstock is a "small" (fewer than 1,000 people) rural community between Chard in Somerset and
Axminster in East Devon. The parish comprises Chardstock Village, which has approximately half the total
population, and ten relatively remote hamlets.
4. Cotley Wash
)
3.
9.
7.
1.
)
6.
8.
)
10
.)
2.
)
5.
)
CHARDSTOCK
PARISH
Name of Parish:
Chardstock
OS Grid Reference:
ST 30945 04481 (The George Inn)
Approximate Size:
c. 2,170 hectares (5,360 acres)
Local Planning Authority (LPA):
East Devon District Council (EDDC)
East Devon District Council Ward:
Yarty
Population:
828 (2011 Census)
Number of Households:
360 (2011 Census)
Main Settlement:
Chardstock Village (total = 194 dwellings)
Outlying Hamlets:
1.) Brockfield, 2.) Birchill, 3.) Burridge, 4.) Cotley Wash
(Bewley Down), 5.) Fordwater, 6.) Holy City, 7.) Hook,
8.) Kitbridge, 9.) Sycamore, 10.) Tytherleigh.
(Note: some dwellings are
in isolated places between
the hamlets).
(total =166 dwellings)
Around 85% of the parish is in the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Chardstock Village
has a Conservation Area and a Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB). Much of the open land beyond the BUAB is
recognised as comprising either statutory or non-statutory sites of biodiversity interest.
Despite evidence provided by EDDC's officers and a recommendation by EDDC's own planning committee that
Chardstock is an unsustainable settlement, EDDC members have voted - without tabling any new evidence that, for purposes of the Local Plan, the parish is sustainable. This assertion will be the subject of formal
challenge when the plan is next submitted for inspection.
page 3 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
3. Services, facilities and infrastructure
Transport
3.1.1 Chardstock has no true public transport beyond buses to and from Taunton, Chard, and Axminster on
the A358. These are convenient for north Tytherleigh (c.14% of the population), but are not a
realistic proposition elsewhere because of the long (1 mile), winding, single-track approach road from
the A358 to the village. With high hedges, no pedestrian footpath and no street lighting (A1 Fig. 1),
the road is a dangerous place to walk. The A358 is some miles from the other hamlets (A1 Fig. 2).
3.1.2
The bus service on the A358 offers just 8 return buses per day (7 on Saturdays) between Chard and
Axminster (every 90 minutes) and is geared to off-peak shoppers with no early morning, evening or
Sunday service – so it cannot be used for commuting to and from work. There are no bus shelters.
Crossing the A358 at the Tytherleigh bus stop is dangerous because there is no marked crossing and
no way of slowing traffic on what is a near-blind corner on this busy A-road.
3.1.3
Using the criteria in the LPA's Sustainability Checklist, the following apply (north Tytherleigh only).
a)
Only for < 14% of Chardstock
residents.
Is the bus stop within a 400m walk?
For those houses within reach:
b)
Is the route flat or with a gradient appropriate to the
less mobile?
No – Broom Lane is on quite a steep
hill.
c)
Are resting places available? Are footpaths available to
avoid traffic conflict? Are access routes lit?
No – in every case.
Roads
3.2
Outside the village, roads are generally single-track, winding lanes with high banks and hedges.
Surfaces comprise a thin layer of tarmac on a few inches of rubble and cannot support sustained or
heavy traffic (A2 Fig. 3). Maintenance is minimal and roads are often in a state of disrepair. From
April 2016, Devon County Council Highways will no longer grit or clear any roads in the parish beyond
the A358. This increases the likelihood that Chardstock village and the outlying hamlets may well be
cut off from the main road network during bad weather.
Services and facilities
3.3
A church and pub (the latter has been closed twice in the last two years and its long-term future has
to be seen as precarious) are at the north-west end of the village and a small shop, primary school,*
playground and community hall are at the south-east end. They are all convenient for village
residents with reasonable mobility. A restaurant in Tytherleigh is convenient for residents of that
hamlet's northern end. All services and facilities are some miles from the outlying areas and hamlets,
which have no services of their own. The parish has no doctor's surgery or other medical service. The
nearest Accident & Emergency departments are in Exeter (31 miles each way), Taunton (18 miles
each away) and Yeovil (20 miles each way). A one-way journey by private car to each of these takes
around 45 minutes in good traffic conditions.
* St. Andrews School is part of a highly regarded multi-academy trust. It expects to reach capacity in 2016.
It is in the catchment area for Colyton Grammar School and attracts pupils from around the district. Places
for Chardstock children cannot be guaranteed. The alternatives involve commuting elsewhere by car.
Utilities and drainage
3.4.1
40% of the village and all of the hamlets have no mains drainage. 60% of the village and all of the
hamlets have no mains gas. Some outlying areas still depend on boreholes for drinking water,
although most residents can access mains water. Everyone has electricity and telephone services.
3.4.2
The houses with mains foul water drainage all use the same small, pumped system, parts of which
date back to the 1940s. Already extended three times, its capacity is unknown. Several houses in the
parish have old (and, in the case of older properties in the village, usually shared) private sewage
systems with complex access and maintenance arrangements, often affecting several properties.
Flooding
3.5.1
The parish is in the River Kit Valley and has drainage and local flooding problems (A2 Fig. 4). These
have been the subject of discussion, investigation, reports – and very little action.
page 4 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
3.5.2
Places particularly prone to road flooding include where the road crosses the River Kit at:
a) Kitbridge (on the road to Birchill)
c) The Mill (on the road to Holy City)
b) Farway (between Holy City and Brockfield)
d) Cotley Wash (between Bewley Down and Hook)
When flooded, these roads often become impassable. Run-off water also causes scouring to the sides
of some lanes and creates a safety hazard with the potential for vehicle damage (A2 Fig. 5).
Telephone and broadband
3.6
The quality of reception around the parish is generally poor and very patchy, but does vary according
to provider. Where available, mobile phone services are only 2G. Broadband speeds are poor and
erratic, typically averaging between 500kbps and 4mbs. There are no credible plans in place to
enhance either service.
Employment
3.7
There are a few local, small firms (including farms) which offer some full- or part-time employment
(not necessarily to local people, since some require specialised skills). Other local employment usually
means self-employment. For residents of the village and hamlets other than north Tytherleigh, the
absence of any public transport means travel to other places of work must be by private car.
4. Chardstock, sustainable development and the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF)
(see Appendix A5 also)
The NPPF defines three main roles for sustainability. They are (NPPF para.7):
an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring
that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth
and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of
infrastructure.
A policy of allowing developers to build any size of house wherever they can find developable land
has failed. Smaller houses, which are affordable by local people (which are all that Chardstock needs),
are scarce. Larger houses (old and new) are in oversupply. Some remain unsold for long periods. Two
have remained empty for two years after being built. Even smaller properties are often too costly for
the less well-off. The words "small" and "affordable" are not interchangeable, and developments of
"smaller" houses do not necessarily address the basic problem of a general mismatch between the
value of new houses built and what local people can afford. This has resulted in an influx of relatively
wealthy, often retired, people from outside the parish. Consequently:
 younger and older residents cannot remain in the parish for lack of houses they can afford;
 the local age demographic is skewed towards older people (A3 Fig 6);
 the prospects for a self-sustaining local economy with new local businesses, skills and employment
are reduced (retired people tend to re-circulate rather than create or add value to wealth);
 further pressure is put on the district's already stretched social and health services;
 house prices are pushed to a level above the district and national averages (A4 Fig. 7);
 pressure on antiquated infrastructure grows because development proposals are (by accident or
design) not large enough to attract planning obligations. Rural villages do not attract national or
local government investment and local infrastructure problems remain unaddressed.
a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing
required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built
environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social
and cultural well-being.
 Unfocused new development has only produced the wrong houses in the wrong place.
 There has been a net inflow of older people into the parish, leading to an unbalanced
demographic.
 The relatively small scale of local developments means that there is little financial benefit to pay
for improvements to poor infrastructure and other community services and facilities.
page 5 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic
environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently,
minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon
economy.
 The Conservation Area (established in 1976) is a designated area needing protection. It is a focal
point for developers (wishing to sell "old world charm" whilst simultaneously diluting and
degrading it). Some of these projects involve building in pre-existing private gardens. Despite the
strictures on such development in the NPPF, the LPA has not sought to control this.
In truth, the Conservation Area offers negligible scope for development which would enhance its
appearance or offer the scale of social benefit that might justify encroaching upon it.
 The AONB is also a designated area, some of it comprising statutory and non-statutory sites of
biodiversity interest. There would be no credible way to mitigate damage to these sites in the face
of renewed pressure to provide land for houses in the future (ref: Parish Bio-diversity Audit for
Chardstock (Link)).
 Developers resist the cost of incorporating energy – and resource-saving – measures in new
buildings on small developments on grounds of "viability", and the LPA does not normally apply
above minimum standards. New houses tend to be technically and ecologically very ordinary.
 The lack of public transport and adequate local services means the greatest impact of development
will be more use of private cars.
 In 2014 , officers of East Devon District Council carried out a structured review of the sustainability
of each of the 42 small towns and villages in east Devon. Chardstock met only 5 of the criteria,
whereas to be regarded as sustainable generally required that 7 be met. This fact notwithstanding,
the council voted to treat Chardstock as sustainable despite the contrary evidence. This decision is
currently the subject of formal challenge.
5. Summary
Chardstock has no viable public transport. Its roads are sub-standard, poorly maintained and unsuited
to heavy traffic. There is little local employment. There are limited local services and facilities in the
village and the great majority of residents are reliant on private transport to access a broader range
elsewhere (such as medical and the larger retail services) and to commute to work. The position in
the outlying areas (nearly half the total population) is considerably worse.
Local infrastructure (roads, foul water and surface drainage, and access to utilities, including modern
telecommunications, is poor and overdue for improvement. It will need significant investment.
The Conservation Area is under pressure from developers and the LPA has not tried to control this.
For development projects of 10 houses or fewer there is no incentive ("stick" or "carrot") for
developers to build small and affordable houses, incorporate up-to-date energy and resource saving
measures, or invest in local infrastructure. Local authorities do not prioritise such investment in small,
out-of-the-way places. New development, therefore, rarely brings any benefit to the local community.
Age and house price imbalances have, if anything, been made worse by "laissez faire" planning policy.
Recent experience has shown that national and local planning policy and local planning practice do
not underpin sustainable development in small rural settlements like Chardstock.
EDDC has ignored both the evidence and professional advice and simply declared that Chardstock is
sustainable. It is not the case. Continued over-development will take a toll on the settlement’s
infrastructure, ability to function, local character and quality of life.
6. Conclusion
Chardstock's lack of public transport, limited services, facilities and employment, its reliance on
private cars and its antiquated infrastructure (all readily verifiable) mean that the village,
Conservation Area and hamlets are not sustainable in the terms of the NPPF and cannot support
renewed, speculative development.
Unsustainability also precludes the possibility of "exception sites" outside the BUAB, since to allow
them would worsen an already unsatisfactory situation. If the main settlement is not sustainable, then
development away from it cannot be either. This is particularly true of development in the Blackdown
Hills AONB, a designated area and protected place, much of which, in Chardstock's case, is recognised
as comprising both statutory and non-statutory sites of biodiversity interest.
page 6 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
It is simply not realistic to plan for growth in Chardstock unless there is parallel, significant and fully
funded investment in services and infrastructure to support that growth, as well as a broad consensus
among the local population that development meets an agreed housing need and matches the overall
character of the community and its built and natural environment.
7. Regulatory
Department of Communities and Local Government:
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)
East Devon District Council:
East Devon Local Plan 1995–2011 (out of date)
New East Devon Local Plan 2006–26 (emerging)
8. Information sources
1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
March 2012 (ISBN: 978-1-4098-3413-7)
2. The (emerging) East Devon Local Plan
November 2012
3. Rural community profile for Chardstock Parish
October 2013. Action with Communities in
Rural England (ACRE) rural evidence project
4. Chardstock Conservation Area Appraisal
East Devon District Council 1999/2009
5. Chardstock Parish Neighbourhood Plan Issues
Questionnaire (Link)
July 2014
6. Parish Biodiversity Audit for Chardstock (Link)
2014 (Dr. CM Drake FRES)
9. Glossary
AONB
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
EDDC
East Devon District Council
LPA
Local Planning Authority
NPPF
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
10. Acknowledgements
Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan Team
Dr. C. Martin Drake FRES
Messrs. Stuart Todd Associates Ltd.
Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) rural evidence project
The Chardstock Community (Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire and associated information gathering)
page 7 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
Appendices – Evidence
A 1 – Roads and car ownership
Fig 1.
© B Coveney 2015
© D & G Everett 2015
© D & G Everett 2015
para. 2.2 "Maintenance is minimal
and roads are often in a state of
disrepair."
para: 2.1.1… the long, winding, single track, main approach road
from the A358 into the village
Fig 2. Distances from the A358 (at Tytherleigh/All Saints turning) to each hamlet
Outside of the village, roads are either "C" roads or unclassified. They are generally narrow, winding, singletrack, rural lanes with high banks and hedges and passing places. They have neither pavements nor street
lighting. They are neither gritted nor cleared in severe conditions. Nearly half the population of the parish
lives either in one of the ten hamlets or in isolated places between them.
a) Distance to the nearest bus stop (measured in February 2015)
From
miles
To: A358
(Tytherleigh Arms)
miles
To: A358
(All Saints Turn Off)
miles
The George Inn
n/a
1 (0.96)
n/a
Brockfield
1.25
2.25
n/a
Birchill
n/a
n/a
1.5
Burridge
1.5
2.25
n/a
Cotley Wash
2.5
3.25
n/a
Fordwater
1.5
0.5
n/a
Holy City
0.75
2
n/a
Hook
0.75
2
n/a
Kitbridge
0.5
1.25
n/a
Sycamore
3.00
4.00
n/a
1
n/a
n/a
Tytherleigh – railway crossing
1.75
.75
n/a
Chard Town Centre (Sainsburys)*
4.56
3.5
n/a
Axminster Town Centre (Co-op)*
4.54
3.5
n/a
Tytherleigh Arms (A358)
*
To George Inn
Both routes via Tytherleigh and the A358 – the only road that from 2016 onwards will still be regularly gritted and cleared in
inclement weather.
page 8 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
b) Car ownership (2011 Census):
Cars per household
0
1
2
3+
England
Devon
25.8%
42.2%
24.7%
1.9%
17.4%
44.2%
28.6%
2.8%
Neighbourhood Plan Issues
Questionnaire 2014 (respondent
1
%)
Chardstock
5.3%
38.9%
38.3%
5.3%
1.2%
36.3%
47.5%
15%
Community profile for Chardstock (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013
The parish depends upon private cars as the primary means of transport. The social and environmental
implications are obvious.
c) Time to walk2/take public transport to essential facilities (2011 Census):
Facility
Supermarket
Town Centre
Devon (mins.)
Chardstock (mins.)
13
24
39
42
Community profile for Chardstock (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013
Footnotes:
1. The overall response to the questionnaire was 36% of the total parish population.
2. This almost certainly understates the true size of the problem. The times are for village residents mainly from the
south-east end. To walk from the hamlets north-west of the village takes much longer. The round-trip to Axminster from
Brockfield would take a fit, young person two to three hours and is unrealistic for older or less mobile residents. Even if
walking to the bus stop from the village (a minimum of 15 minutes for a fit young person) was practical, then the
travelling time for a return journey to Axminster would be close to 1¾ hours (if the buses run every 90 minutes, the
average "wait" for a return bus from Axminster will be of the order of 45 minutes).
A 2 – Road condition, drainage and flooding
Fig. 3:
Fig. 4:
© M Desouza 2015
para 2.2 "… surfaces
consisting mainly of a few
inches of rubble with a thin
layer of tarmac … often in a
state of disrepair"
© M Desouza 2015
a) the road at Kitbridge when flooded.
© M Desouza 2015
b) The road at Farway when flooded.
para 2.7 "The parish is in the River Kit Valley with known drainage and localised flooding
problems."
Fig.5:
para. 2.8 "run-off water causes considerable
scouring to the sides of some lanes and
creates a safety hazard with the potential for
vehicle damage."
© B Coveney 2015
page 9 of 11
© B Coveney 2015
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
A 3 – Age distribution
Fig. 6. Comparative age distribution: Chardstock, Devon and England (2011)
CHARDSTOCK
DEVON
ENGLAND
30.7%
22.6%
16.3%
55.0%
60.9%
14.4%
16.5%
64.7%
18.9%
Aged 65+
Aged 16–64
Aged 0–15
Community profile for Chardstock (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013.
A 4 – House prices and affordability
Fig. 7 House price (2009) and Council Tax bands in Chardstock and England
Affordability ratio
(median house prices
as ratio of median
incomes)
Dwellings in Council
Tax Band A
Dwellings in Council
Tax Band B
Dwellings in Council
Tax Band C
21.7
12
42
52
England average =
3.2% of dwellings
(England average =
24.8%)
11.3% of dwellings
(England average =
19.6%)
13.9% of dwellings
(England average =
21.8%)
15.4
Source: Council Tax Band (Valuation Office Agency 2011), House prices (Land Registry 2009), Affordability Ratio (Land
Registry/ONS 2007/08)
page 10 of 11
(vs. 3.6)
Consultation Draft (vs. 3.6)
A 5 – A snapshot of the housing market in Chardstock (May 2015)
1.
Between January 2012 and January 2015, 25 houses were sold in Chardstock. Five were sold to local
people.
2.
Of these five:
a)
One "more affordable"* house, being ex-social housing and subject to a local tie – not normally available
under current LPA rules – was sold for below normal market value and to a local person;
b)
One more expensive house was sold at the market rate to a buyer from outside the parish, so that its
owner could buy a different but similarly priced house to "move sideways" locally;
c)
One "more affordable (just)" house was bought by local people, as their principal residence and at the
market rate.
3.
So, in the last 3 years, of the total number of houses sold in the parish, precisely one was sold to a local
person (4% of the total), as their principal residence and at the normal market rate. (The two "more
affordable" houses among the new builds in "Chardstone Grove" are rented by local people from a
housing association).
4.
During the same period, 21 new unsustainable houses have been approved for construction by the LPA.
Of these, two were at the "more affordable"* end of the market. Ten have, so far, been built and, of
these, 18 months later, only eight had actually been sold. Two of the larger houses stood empty until the
last was finally sold in June 2015 All are in, or immediately adjacent to, the Conservation Area.
From the results of the Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire, there is evidence that that each new
occupation brings, on average, 2 additional private cars to the parish.
5.
During this period, permission has been sought to build 2 new houses in gardens in the Conservation
Area. One was approved (as part of the 21 described in 4. above) and the other refused on grounds of
unsustainability. It has been resubmitted as a result of EDDC’s decision on 26th. March 2015 (Section 2,
final paragraph).
6.
There is anecdotal evidence that some younger people choose not to live in Chardstock because they
cannot afford a house here, because of its poor infrastructure (e.g. slow and unreliable broadband) and
for lack of access to more general services, such as medical services and a broader range of shops.
7.
In March 2015 there were seven houses for sale in Chardstock, at an average price of £409,000.
None of this can be said to truly comply with the basic "sustainability proposition" of well-designed local
houses for local people with good infrastructure, a broad range of services and facilities, and with the
local built, historic and natural environment remaining undamaged.
8.
The Old School (a listed building at the heart of the Conservation Area) and some land behind it have
been the subject of multiple overlapping planning applications. A range of proposals, submitted
sequentially and in parallel, have sought approval of from seven to ten dwellings.
Three, subsequently rising to five, were approved for the Old School Building itself. The principle of
development here was supported by the parish council, since it brought a tangible benefit to the
community by saving, in its totality, the Victorian frontage of the old building – a listed building in the
Conservation Area.
A plan to build four houses on the land behind the Old School was refused, because Chardstock was
thought at that time to be unsustainable. Nonetheless, a new plan to build five houses there was
submitted shortly before the 26th. March District Council Meeting.
On 26th. March 2015 , the District Council chose to ignore professional advice and, contrary to evidence
and without any real reason or justification, simply pronounced Chardstock to be sustainable.
The plan to build five houses behind the Old School was approved one month later.
Principal source for points 1–7: Zoopla, February 2015
*
"More affordable" means just that. It is not always synonymous with "smaller" or with "low-cost" –
and vice versa. An "affordable" house is a property that a local person on average local earnings
(currently 85% of national average – source ACRE) can afford to buy, either outright (albeit with a
mortgage) or, when available, through a shared-ownership scheme.
page 11 of 11
(vs. 3.6)