Consultation Draft March 2013

Previously referredto as the Local

Development FrameworkCore Strategy

Local Plan 2029Part 1

Strategic Sitesand Policies

VillagesHierarchy

1

Contents

1. Introduction.....................................................................................2 2. Policy Background .........................................................................2 3. Plan-making requirements.............................................................4 4. Methodology ...................................................................................5 5. Results and Conclusions ...............................................................6 Appendix 1: Evaluation of South East Plan policies relating to development in rural areas and their consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework .................................................................7 Appendix 2: Facility scoring system ...................................................8 Appendix 3: Assessment of village facilities 2011 .............................9 Appendix 4: Comparison of 2007 and 2011 village assessments ...14 Appendix 5: Explanation of what changed between 2007 and 2011 18

2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This study collates information on the services and facilities available in the villages and hamlets in the district. It updates the May 2007 study1 which informed the former Core Strategy. This information is used to assess the relative sustainability of villages to produce a hierarchy of ‘larger’ and ‘smaller’ villages for Local Plan 2029 policy-making purposes.

2. POLICY BACKGROUND

2.1. To set the context for the study, it is useful to look at existing policy. In March 2012, the Coalition Government replaced all the Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS) with one National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In addition, they have announced that the South East Plan, which had previously set housing targets for local authorities, will be revoked shortly.

National policy 2.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning

should ‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs’. It goes onto state that planning should ‘take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it.’2

2.3. The Framework states that ‘in rural areas, housing should be located where it

will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby’3.

2.4. The Framework also attaches ‘great importance to Green Belts’4 and in

paragraph 81 states that ‘local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access, provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation, retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity, or improve damaged and derelict land’. For this reason, the council is not currently proposing to allocate any housing development within the Green Belt.

Regional policy 2.5. The government have signalled their intention to abolish Regional Strategies,

with a more recent announcement that the South East Plan will be revoked by

1 http://www. whitehorsedc. gov. uk/sites/default/files/Study%20of%20village%20facilities. pdf 2 Paragraph 17 3 Paragraph 55 4 Paragraph 79

3

the end of March 2013. However, it has still formed an important document during the preparation of the Vale Local Plan 2029 Part 1.

2.6. The South East Plan has been particularly relevant for identifying the Vale’s

housing target and for establishing the spatial strategy. These matters are discussed in more detail in the Housing and the Spatial Strategy Topic Papers5.

2.7. South East Plan policy BE5 Village Management is relevant to the local plan

approach to villages. Supporting paragraph 12.14 identified that ‘villages form an important part of the network of settlements in the region, and are often the subject of pressures arising from their location in a highly dynamic region, but also from stagnation or exclusion, in some cases resulting from a loss of services or changing community structure.’ It goes on to highlight that ‘small-scale development can help meet the specific local housing, business and service needs of individual rural settlements, preferably informed by community led mechanisms such as parish plans and village design statements’.

2.8. The Housing Topic Paper has reviewed the consistency of polices in the South

East Plan relating to housing. Included within this was the assessment of Policy SP3 relating to Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance. Appendix One of this paper evaluates the consistency of regional policies SP3 and BE5 with the requirements of the Framework. It identified that SP3 is partially consistent and BE5 is fully consistent with the Framework.

Local policy 2.9. The Framework provides guidance on the status of existing local plans and the

impact of the introduction of the Framework on them. The Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 was adopted in 2006 in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) rather than the 2004 Act. In such circumstances, the Framework states (emphasis added):

. . . due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to

their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)6.

2.10. The majority of policies within the saved local plan remain consistent with the

Framework7. The main areas of inconsistency relates to the current housing land supply shortfall in the district.

2.11. In terms of housing development in rural areas the assessment has identified

some areas that are partially consistent and could be reviewed. The elements

5 The other topic paper are available from http://whitehorsedc.gov.uk/evidence 6 Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Annex 1 – Page 48.

7 An assessment of the consistency of the saved Local Plan 2011 policies is available at http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/planning-policy/saved-policies-local-plan-2011

4

of this assessment that are relevant are reviewed within the housing topic paper8.

2.12. The assessment within the housing topic paper identified that the following

policies relating to the settlement hierarchy would need to be reviewed as part of Local Plan Part One:

• H10: Development in the five Main Settlements

• H11: Development in the Larger Villages

• H12: Development in the Smaller Villages

• H13: Development Elsewhere 2.13. The housing topic paper also assesses whether any of the non-saved Local

Plan 2011 policies are still covered elsewhere or if a new policy as part of the new local plan would be required. For the five housing policies that were not saved, the reasons why these were not saved remain relevant as they are sufficiently covered in other legislation or policies.

3. PLAN-MAKING REQUIREMENTS

3.1. Through our review of planning policy we have established that the Local Plan 2029 will need to find suitable locations for new housing which offer a range of community facilities, with good access to jobs, key services, and infrastructure. We should concentrate development near to existing service centres but also allow some limited development, in or next to other settlements in order to meet local needs and maintain the vitality of these communities. In addition, we must consider the accessibility of new housing to jobs, shops and services by transport modes other than the car.

3.2. We have translated this guidance and applied it locally in our spatial vision and

strategic objectives. The spatial strategy of Local Plan 2029 Part One focuses most change in the towns and local service centres with more modest change in larger villages. This is because the main settlements have the best access to local services and facilities, which will help limit the need to travel to meet day to day needs. This spatial strategy still recognises that the towns and the major urban areas outside the district will continue to provide the higher order services.

Role of the village facilities study 3.3. The Local Plan 2029 Part 1 spatial strategy treats different classes of

settlement differently in terms of their suitability to accommodate development. The local plan identifies a settlement hierarchy for policy-making purposes. Within the settlement hierarchy higher order settlements such as market towns and local service centres are identified as the main locations to accommodate future growth.

8 Housing Topic Paper Appendix 2

5

3.4. The village facilities study provides an evidence base for the classification of ‘larger’ and ‘smaller’ villages within the settlement hierarchy. The classification is based on the availability of or access to facilities and services, to indicate their relative sustainability as locations for some development. The approach for assessing settlements for the Local Plan 2029 uses a wider range of indicators than that used for the Local Plan 2011 to give a better indication of relative sustainability.

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Comprehensive and consistent data was collected for all settlements by desktop research backed up by site visits to verify the data that had been collected and fill in any gaps in the information. Once completed, a copy of the relevant survey sheet for each village was sent to the parish council for verification. 47 out of the 64 parish councils responded.

The Scoring System 4.2. A scoring system was devised to rank villages according to the level of

services and facilities available. This is provided at Appendix Two. 4.3. The scoring is based on the relative importance of each facility, in that some

services are more essential and used more frequently than others. For example, a primary school or a supermarket selling a good range of food are important facilities that reduce the need to travel by car and support the vitality of the local community. Other facilities such as a village hall or a recreation ground add to diversity and help build communities. Such facilities do not score so highly because they do not contribute as significantly to people’s day to day needs and therefore the sustainability of the village.

4.4. Where a facility can be found within the built up area of the village, points are

scored irrespective of the exact location of the facility. Where an adjacent village can make use of a facility ie it is within walking or cycling distance, that village can also score points for that particular service. For example, West Hanney scores points for having access to a primary school even though the school is located in East Hanney. Furthermore, some facilities are located quite a distance from any village but could still count if within walking or cycling distance. For example, the Snooty Fox Inn is located on the main road by-passing Littleworth but because the pub is within 400m of the village, it counts for scoring purposes.

4.5. Distance from facilities is taken into account, as set out in Appendix Two. The

distances used are measured along roads based on guidelines provided by Barton, Davis and Guise in their book entitled ‘Sustainable Settlements: A Guide for Planners, Designers and Developers’ (1995).

6

5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1. Table 1 shows the village hierarchy based on the evidence collected. Villages that scored 14 and over are categorised as a Larger Village within Local Plan 2029 Part One. Villages scoring 7-13 points are categorised as Smaller Villages. Settlements with lower scores are not classified, and will be treated as part of the open countryside for planning policy purposes. Settlements washed over by Green Belt designation are excluded from the hierarchy.

Table 1: Village hierarchy

Larger Villages Smaller Villages

Blewbury Appleton

Cumnor Ardington

Drayton Ashbury

East Challow Buckland

East Hanney Charney Bassett

East Hendred Childrey

Harwell Chilton

Harwell Campus Coleshill

Kennington Frilford

Kingston Baguize & Southmoor Fyfield

Marcham Great Coxwell

Milton Kingston Lisle

Radley Letcombe Regis

Shrivenham Little Coxwell

Stanford in the Vale Littleworth

Steventon Longcot

Sutton Courtenay Longworth

Uffington Milton Heights

Watchfield Rowstock

Wootton Shellingford

Upton

West Hanney

(Harwell Oxford Campus has facilities and services equivalent to a large village)

West Hendred

5.2. Appendix Three shows the scores for all settlements assessed. These are

ranked and presented alongside the score received in 2007 in Appendix Four. For comparative purposes the 2007 score has been colour coded to reflect the policies in Local Plan 2011. The 2011 scores are colour coded to reflect the category in which they appear in the consultation draft of Local Plan 2029 Part One.

5.3. A summary of the changes by village 2007-2011 is summarised in Appendix

Five.

7

APPENDIX 1: EVALUATION OF SOUTH EAST PLAN POLICIES RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS AND THEIR CONSISTENCY WITH THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Policy Summary of South East Plan (SEP) policy requirement Officer comments on Consistency with the Framework

SP3: Urban focus and urban renaissance

Local planning authorities should formulate policies to: - concentrate development within or adjacent to the region’s urban

areas - seek to achieve at least 60% of all new development on

previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings

- ensure that developments in and around urban areas, are well designed and consistent with the principles of urban renaissance and sustainable development

- use strategic land availability assessments to identify the scope for redevelopment and intensification of urban areas, seeking opportunities for intensification around transport hubs and interchanges

Partially consistent The specific target for brownfield land is not reflected in national policy but core planning principle number 8 of the Framework is to ‘encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has bee previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of high environmental value. ’ In addition the urban focus is also reflected in the Framework. Core planning principle 5 states that planning should ‘take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas…’ In addition number 11 of the core planning principles ion the Framework states that planning should ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling’. The Framework continues to advocate the use of SHLAAs to assess the availability, suitability and economic viability of sites.

BE5 Village Management

In preparing local development documents (LDDs), local planning authorities should positively plan to meet the defined local needs of their rural communities for small scale affordable housing, business and service development, taking account of changing patterns of agriculture, economic diversification, and continued viability of local services. LDDs should define their approach to development in villages based on the functions performed, their accessibility, the need to protect or extend key local services and the capacity of the built form and landscape setting of the village. All new development should be subject to rigorous design and sustainability criteria so that the distinctive character of the village is not damaged. To assist this, local planning authorities should encourage community-led local assessments of need and action planning to inform decision making processes.

Fully Consistent The core planning principles of the Framework acknowledge the importance of supporting thriving rural communities (paragraph 17). In addition the Framework states at paragraph 55 that in order ‘to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Paragraph 28 highlights the need to ‘support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development’.

8

APPENDIX 2: FACILITY SCORING SYSTEM

Facility Explanation Score

Primary School

Primary School within 600m of village No primary school within 600m of village.

3 0

Post Office/ Banks/Shops

Supermarket selling a good range of food including meat, fruit & vegetables and bread. Supermarket selling a good range of food including meat, fruit & vegetables and bread. 3 or more day to day shops 2 day to day shops 1 day to day shop (Maximum score of 6) Day to day shop – Post Office/Village shop/ butchers/hairdresser/newsagents/food store/bakers All must be within 800m of village.

3 3 3 2 1

Places of worship

3 or more places of worship within 1km of village 1 or 2 places of worship within 1km of village

2 1

Medical Doctors or dentists surgery within 1km of village open at least 8 sessions/week Doctors or dentists surgery within 1km of village open less than 8 sessions/week (including visiting doctors) Session – morning/afternoon/evening

2 1

Food/Drink outlets

3 or more outlets within 400m of village 1 or 2 outlets within 400m of village

2 1

Library Permanent Library within 800m of village Visiting Library

2 1

Village Hall Any hall, irrespective of quantity or type within 1km of village 1

Bus Services from settlement

Hourly service to 2 or more main centres Hourly service to 1 main centre Daily service to at least 1 main centre Bus route must be within 400m of village.

3 2 1

Rail Services Hourly service to 2 or more main centres Hourly service to 1 main centre Daily service to at least 1 main centre

3 2 1

Recreation Pitch and equipped play area/youth area Pitch (Playing field must be within 800m, playgrounds must be within 400m)

2 1

Employment Employment site within 1. 5km of village Employment site within 5km of village Employment site – areas protected for employment as marked on the Local Plan 2011.

2 1

Proximity to main settlement

Village within 5km of main settlement by nearest road route. Main settlements are Abingdon, Botley, Didcot, Faringdon, Wantage, Grove and Swindon.

1

9

APPENDIX 3: ASSESSMENT OF VILLAGE FACILITIES 2011

Settlement Primary School

Post Office/ Bank/ Shop

Places of Worship

Food /Drink Outlets

Medical Library Village Hall

Bus Service

Rail Service

Recreation Employment Proximity to main

Settlement

Total

Appleford 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6

Appleton 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 12

Ardington 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 1 13

Ashbury 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 9

Baulking 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3

Bayworth 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Besselsleigh 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6

Blewbury 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 16

Boars Hill 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4

Bourton 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 5

Buckland 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 11

Buscot 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 6

Carswell Marsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Charney Bassett 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 7

Childrey 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 13

Chilton 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 8

Coleshill

0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 9

Compton Beauchamp 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

10

Settlement Primary School

Post Office/ Bank/ Shop

Places of Worship

Food /Drink Outlets

Medical Library Village Hall

Bus Service

Rail Service

Recreation Employment Proximity to main

Settlement

Total

Cothill 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4

Cumnor 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 17

Denchworth 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 5

Drayton 3 6 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 20

Dry Sandford 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 7

East Challow 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 14

East Hanney 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 0 0 14

East Hendred 3 2 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 2 1 0 16

Eaton 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4

Eaton Hastings 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Farmoor 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 12

Fernham 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 6

Frilford 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 10

Fyfield 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6

Garford 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 4

Ginge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Goosey 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Gozzards Ford 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

Great Coxwell 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 8

Harwell 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 0 1 15

11

Settlement Primary School

Post Office/ Bank/ Shop

Places of Worship

Food /Drink Outlets

Medical Library Village Hall

Bus Service

Rail Service

Recreation Employment Proximity to main

Settlement

Total

Hatford 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

Hinton Waldrist 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4

Idstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Kennington 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 3 0 2 1 1 25

Kingston Baguize & Southmoor

3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 2 0

18

Kingston Lisle 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 7

Kingstone Winslow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Letcombe Bassett 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5

Letcombe Regis 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 10

Little Coxwell 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 9

Littleworth 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 1 9

Lockinge 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

Longcot 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 10

Longworth 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 10

Lyford 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Marcham 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 1 14

Milton 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 2 1 15

Milton Heights 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 10

12

Settlement Primary School

Post Office/ Bank/ Shop

Places of Worship

Food /Drink Outlets

Medical Library Village Hall

Bus Service

Rail Service

Recreation Employment Proximity to main

Settlement

Total

Netherton 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

North Hinksey 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7

Pusey 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Radley 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 19

Rowstock 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 7

Shellingford 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 8

Shippon 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 1 14

Shrivenham 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 3 0 2 2 0 23

South Hinksey 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 9

Sparsholt 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4

Stanford in the Vale 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 19

Steventon 3 4 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 2 2 0 19

Sunningwell 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 12

Sutton Courtenay 3 5 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 2 2 1 21

Tubney 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4

Uffington 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 14

Upton 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 9

Watchfield 3 5 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 19

West Challow 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4

13

Settlement Primary School

Post Office/ Bank/ Shop

Places of Worship

Food /Drink Outlets

Medical Library Village Hall

Bus Service

Rail Service

Recreation Employment Proximity to main

Settlement

Total

West Hanney 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7

West Hendred 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 9

Woolstone 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

Wootton 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 2 2 1 23

Wytham 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 9

14

APPENDIX 4: COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2011 VILLAGE ASSESSMENTS

The process of collecting data is detailed more in the full Village Hierarchy Text, which outlines the scoring system and the individual amenities of each village. This document is intended more as a comparison text outlining changes within each village. The following tables detail the Village Hierarchy Survey results from 2007 and 2011. The changes in amenities seen between scores are then explained in the section following the tables. The constraints section outlines any specific constraints on the village tables are colour coded to show village designations, as explained below:

2007 2011

Local Plan 2011 Policy H11 (larger villages, up to 15 dwellings permitted on sites up to 0. 5ha)

Local Plan 2029 Part One Core Policy 2: Larger Villages

Local Plan 2011 Policy H12 (Smaller villages, up to 4 dwellings permitted)

Local Plan 2029 Part One Core Policy 2: Smaller Villages

Local plan 2011 Policy H13 (villages mentioned in text, 1 or 2 dwellings within built up area permitted)

Locations not included in Local Plan 2029 Part One Core Policy 2

Local Plan 2011 Policy GS3 (Limited infilling)

Not Applicable

Village not mentioned in Local Plan Not Applicable

15

2007 Ranking

Settlement 2007 score

Constraint 2011 Ranking

Settlement 2011 Score

Constraint

=1 Kennington 23 1 Kennington 25 Inset to Green Belt =1 Wootton 23 =2 Wootton 23 Inset to Green Belt =3 Shrivenham 22 =2 Shrivenham 23 =3 Sutton Courtenay 22 4 Sutton Courtenay 21 =5 Drayton 20 5 Drayton 20 =5 Steventon 20 =6 Steventon 19 =5 Watchfield 20 =6 Watchfield 19 =8 Kingston Baguize & Southmoor 19 =6 Radley 19 Inset to Green Belt =8 Radley 19 =6 Stanford in the Vale 19 =8 Stanford in the Vale 19 10 Kingston Baguize & Southmoor 18 =11 Cumnor 18 =11 Cumnor 17 =11 Milton 18 =11 Harwell Campus 17 =13 Blewbury 17 =13 East Hendred 16 AONB =13 Harwell 17 =13 Blewbury 16 AONB =13 Harwell campus 17 =15 Harwell 15 South tip in AONB =16 East Hendred 16 =15 Milton 15 =16 Marcham 16 =17 East Challow 14 18 Childrey 15 =17 East Hanney 14 =19 East Challow 14 =17 Marcham 14 =19 East Hanney 14 =17 Shippon 14 Green Belt =19 Shippon 14 Green Belt =17 Uffington 14 =19 Uffington 14 =22 Childrey 13 =23 Appleton 13 =22 Ardington 13 =23 Ardington 13 =24 Appleton 12 Inset to Green Belt =25 Farmoor 12 Green Belt =24 Farmoor 12 Green Belt =25 Sunningwell 12 Green Belt =24 Sunningwell 12 Green Belt 27 Buckland 11 27 Buckland 11 =28 Ashbury 10 =28 Frilford 10 =28 Frilford 10 =28 Longcot 10 =28 Longcot 10 =28 Longworth 10 =28 Longworth 10 =28 Milton Heights 10 =28 Milton Heights 10 =28 Letcombe Regis 10 =28 Wytham 10 Green Belt =33 Ashbury 9

16

2007 Ranking

Settlement 2007 score

Constraint 2011 Ranking

Settlement 2011 Score

Constraint

=34 Coleshill 9 =33 Coleshill 9 =34 Little Coxwell 9 =33 Little Coxwell 9 =34 Littleworth 9 =33 Littleworth 9 =34 South Hinksey 9 Green Belt =33 South Hinksey 9 Green Belt =34 Upton 9 =33 Upton 9 =34 West Hendred 9 =33 West Hendred 9 =40 Chilton 8 =33 Wytham 9 Green Belt =40 Fyfield 8 =41 Chilton 8 =40 Letcombe Regis 8 =41 Shellingford 8 =40 Shellingford 8 =41 Great Coxwell 8 =44 Charney Bassett 7 =44 Charney Bassett 7 =44 Dry Sandford 7 =44 Dry Sandford 7 Green Belt =44 Great Coxwell 7 =44 Kingston Lisle 7 =44 Kingston Lisle 7 =44 North Hinksey 7 =44 North Hinksey 7 =44 Rowstock 7 =44 Rowstock 7 =44 West Hanney 7 =44 West Hanney 7 =50 Fyfield 6 =51 Appleford 6 =50 Appleford 6 =51 Besselsleigh 6 =50 Besselsleigh 6 =51 Buscot 6 =50 Buscot 6 =51 Fernham 6 =50 Fernham 6 =55 Bourton 5 =55 Bourton 5 =55 Denchworth 5 =55 Denchworth 5 =55 Letcombe Bassett 5 =55 Letcombe Bassett 5 =58 Boars Hill 4 =58 Boars Hill 4 =58 Cothill 4 =58 Cothill 4 =58 Eaton 4 =58 Eaton 4 =58 Garford 4 =58 Garford 4 =58 Gozzards Ford 4 =58 Gozzards Ford 4 =58 Hinton Waldrist 4 =58 Hinton Waldrist 4 =58 Lockinge 4 =58 Lockinge 4 =58 Sparsholt 4 =58 Sparsholt 4 =58 Tubney 4 =58 Tubney 4 =58 West Challow 4 =58 West Challow 4 =58 Woolstone 4 =58 Woolstone 4

17

2007 Ranking

Settlement 2007 score

Constraint 2011 Ranking

Settlement 2011 Score

Constraint

=69 Baulking 3 =69 Baulking 3 =69 Hatford 3 =69 Hatford 3 =71 Bayworth 2 =71 Bayworth 2 =71 Goosey 2 =71 Goosey 2 =71 Netherton 2 =71 Netherton 2 =74 Compton Beauchamp 1 =74 Compton Beauchamp 1 =74 Eaton Hastings 1 =74 Eaton Hastings 1 =74 Ginge 1 =74 Ginge 1 =74 Idstone 1 =74 Idstone 1 =74 Lyford 1 =74 Lyford 1 =74 Pusey 1 =74 Pusey 1 =80 Carswell Marsh 0 =80 Carswell Marsh 0 =81 Kingstone Winslow 0 =80 Kingstone Winslow 0

18

APPENDIX 5: EXPLANATION OF WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN 2007 AND 2011 Appleton - scores 1 less than 2007 as The Thatched Tavern has closed. Ashbury- scores 1 less than 2007 as Village Shop has closed. Blewbury - scores 1 less than 2007 as there is a bus service to one less main centre. Childrey - scores 2 less than 2007 as the Post Office has closed and there is not an hourly bus service to Faringdon. Cumnor - scores 1 less than 2007 as total score should not include St Mary’s church in Farmoor as this is a village hierarchy, not a parish hierarchy. Fyfield – scores 2 less than 2007 as the Post Office has closed along with the Village Stores. Great Coxwell- scores 1 more than 2007 with the addition of a daily bus to Faringdon. Harwell - scores 2 less than in 2007 as total score should not include the Spar at Rowstock as this is a village hierarchy, not a parish hierarchy. The Crispin pub in Harwell has also closed. Kennington - Scores 2 more than 2007 as it has a doctors surgery open at least 8 sessions per week (do not know why it was not previously counted). Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor - scores 1 less as Maybush pub falls outside area. Letcombe Regis- Scores 2 more with the addition of a village shop including a small café and a mobile library. Marcham - scores 2 less than 2007 as the village hall and shop have closed. Milton - scores 3 less than 2007 because the shops, post office and restaurant in Milton Park are not within the village (Milton Park is 1. 3km away - minus 7 points) but there is a primary school (+3 points) and a village hall (+1 point). Shrivenham - scores 1 more than 2007 as there is a doctor’s surgery open at least 8 sessions per week. Steventon - scores 1 less than 2007 as it is no longer considered that a hairdresser should count as a ‘day to day’ shop. Sutton Courtenay - scores 1 less than 2007 as the butchers has closed and a hairdresser no longer counts as a ‘day to day’ shop.

19

Watchfield - scores 1 less than 2007 as a hairdresser no longer counts as a ‘day to day’ shop. Wootton - total score is same as 2007, but scored minus 1 as the fish & chip takeaway and Chinese takeaway are combined, and score plus 1 as there is a dentists open at least 8 sessions per week in addition to a visiting doctor. Wytham – scores 1 less than 2007 as Post Office has closed. Tea rooms at village shop was not added in 2007 and now is, but does not affect score.

Other language versions and alternative formats of this publication are available on request.

These include large print, Braille, audio cassette, computer disk and email.

www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk

Planning Policy TeamAbbey House, Abbey Close,

Abingdon, OX14 3JE Tel: 01235 540499 Fax: 01235 540397

Email: planning.policy@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

Arabic

Bengali

Urdu

Chinese

Punjabi

District Council