Type of issues to be addressed under this heading:
| Return number | Response |
| 1 | Addressing need for smaller units within new developments |
| 2 | Limited development of smaller starter homes. Planning that respects the beauty of the village |
| 3 | Smaller houses and protection for important environmental sites. Infill is fine. |
| 4 | Scale and design of new housing is as important as location. Mix of house size, with focus on 3-bed rather than larger houses. Design and materials generally in keeping with village centre, but should not discount possibility of individual building of modern design, provided design quality is demonstrably high. The housing density is quite low in modern terms, giving plenty of opportunity for in-fill, as has been done at a number of sites over the past two decades. This should be the preferred strategy, rather than using currently empty sites. In-fill could seek to replace those houses with lower architectural merit with higher density housing, and/or could be done by dividing gardens. Current level of holiday and second homes is OK at slightly below 10%. 20% would be unacceptable in its impact on the community. Plans for new building must show that they will not exacerbate flooding problems for low-lying parts of the village. New developments should use rubble 'cock & hen' walls (see Corner Cottage or the old Riding Stables for examples), not artificial stone as in Sutton Close. |
| 5 | Small fill in sites of 2 to 3 houses acceptable but no large scale developments. |
| 6 | Ensure sympathetic use of space. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | New building should be contained within the existing development boundary. Important scenic gaps should not be obscured from public view |
| 9 | Yes |
| 10 | Lack of 'affordable' housing. Maybe wrong type houses being built but need tighter control of numbers being built. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Ensure new housing compliments existing provision. |
| 13 | Minimal development & no large housing schemes. Any new builds should be in keeping with a Dorset village. |
| 14 | Assessing needs for downsizing, and starting up and creating more diverse housing stock. |
| 15 | Develop only as necess includ affordable props. [N.B. There may be a word before affordable] |
| 16 | |
| 17 | [The response numbered 17 proved to be a front sheet only] |
| 18 | |
| 19 | Sympathetic new build/alterations. |
| 20 | |
| 21 | Another concern is the increase in holiday homes over the last ten years or so. If this continues, there will be nobody here in the winter in the future. |
| 22 | We live in a beautiful valley, this should be respected at all times. |
| 23 | Proportionate. |
| 24 | We have to build but should not build on fields. The plan should have a presumption in favour of brownfield development. Knock down single houses and build several first-time buyer and trade-down properties for the elderly. Only build on fields if no-one comes forward to redevelop houses. |
| 25 | |
| 26 | Include. |
| 27 | Include. |
| 28 | Concerns about potential over-development of land where developers are wanting to maximise the number of properties. |
| 29 | The availability of affordable housing. Positive action to enable young people to buy and rent here. |
| 30 | Very limited housing development. Affordable with 'key worker' status. |
| 31 | Include |
| 32 | Keep development to individual cottages in keeping with the present style of property. |
| 33 | Develop accessible housing to meet all needs, e.g. more 1/2 bed, lower cost housing, part-owned/part-rent e.g. 50:50 housing. Build style in line with the character of the area. |
| 34 | Smaller, affordable suitable for older people. |
| 35 | Restrict development. |
| 36 | Small scale developments - wider range of housing. |
| 37 | Provision for more affordable housing for younger people. New builds and building works designed to blend in with existing structures. |
| 38 | Don't build up on the fields ruining the aesthatic of the village. |
| 39 | see comments overleaf regarding preserving the rural quality of Plaisters Lane. |
| 40 | |
| 41 | see comments overleaf regarding preserving the rural quality of Plaisters Lane. |
| 42 | include |
| 43 | include |
| 44 | |
| 45 | Smaller, good quality affordable homes for families. |
| 46 | Small developments only - Neighbourhood Forum essential. |
| 47 | |
| 48 | All of the above headings as listed are important. |
| 49 | Sympathetic to local housing, with a few modern homes. |
| 50 | Any way to ensure that people buying houses in the village intend to live in them? We do not want to become a 'holiday village'. |
| 51 | Probably all of them as they affect living every day but particularly Land use and Conservation, Housing and Planning, Transport. |
| 52 | Type and quantity, number of secon homes, holiday lets, etc |
| 53 | |
| 54 | Any development to be in keeping with surroundings and not excessive. |
| 55 | Some development is inevitable but the scale and character must not be allowed to destroy the rural nature of SP to be swallowed up into Preston. |
| 56 | To allow development of the area as infill, not large developments which could turn this area into a splinter urbanisation of Weymouth |
| 57 | Planning for housing should be only be given in exceptional circumstances. Housing extensions providing that they fit into the area should not be declined. |
| 58 | Any additional building needs to be in keeping with the area and sympathetically done. It is important that the countryside and open spaces are protected. |
| 59 | Smaller units for older people to downsize. |
| 60 | |
| 61 | As I stated on previous page a smattering of low cost housing would ensure future generations of younger people in the village with children otherwise the village will become holiday homes. |
| 62 | Provide sheltered accommodation to permit downsizing and avoid social housing. New build should blend in. |
| 63 | No development in the AONB |
| 64 | Community consultation/adhere to any agreed local targets for development. Controlled development to be encouraged. |
| 65 | Allow reasonable & varied housing developments. New housing not be too dense fro the site. Allow developments for young families. Any development allows 2 car parking space per dwelling. |
| 66 | Enforce sympathetic developments, balancing views of community with local plan requirements. |
| 67 | Should we keep development boundary where it is ? |
| 68 | |
| 69 | Use of brownfield sites only for housing; low cost housing for young people to improve diversity and keep the village alive. |
| 70 | |
| 71 | Style, material, quality of build and design. |
| 72 | The village has its duty to allow development to fit with the needs of the UK generally therefore open-mindedness re future development should be encounted rather than the protective ‘Nimby’ type attitude that can occur in some villages. Density is important though – ramming houses into Palmer Homes site in Winslow road (out of area I know) is not a good example. Fewer quality properties utilising under-used areas is key. |
| 73 | Continue to maintain open gap between Sutton Poyntz and Preston. |
| 74 |
Clearly has to be included in the plan. Especially the topic of “Affordable housing” (whatever that means) – see extract from The Telegraph attached. "Village life 'will die within a generation' as costs force young people to cities More than 100,000 rural residents aged under 35 are expected to migrate from villages and market towns across England to urban areas because of a "chronic shortage" of affordable places to live, according to the National Housing Federation. |
| 75 | |
| 76 | Limits to growth. |
