Genesis Housing Group - Waverley Council Ho… · The Genesis project team gave a presentation at...

Genesis Housing Group

Statement of Public Consultation

March 2008

PPS Group

Genesis Housing Group – Consultation Statement

- 1 -

WBC PLANNING

Note

WA/2008/0845 06-MAY-2008


- 2 -

Consultation Statement

Contents

Introduction: Consultation Statement 3 1.0 Background and purpose of Consultation 4 1.1 Genesis Housing Groups position 5

1.2 Methodology and programme 5 2.0 Consultation undertaken 8 2.1 Newsletters 8

2.2 Consultation forum at Waverley Borough Council 8

2.3 Public Exhibition 8

2.4 Community helpline 9 3.0 Results and response to public consultation 10

3.1 Responses to presentation to Waverley Borough Council 10

3.2 Public Exhibition 12

3.3 Results of the questionnaire 12

3.4 Summary of conclusions for questionnaire results 19

3.5 Community helpline 21

3.6 Genesis response 22

4.0 Conclusion 24 Appendix 1 – Newsletter 26 Appendix 2 – Drop-in Session Boards 28 Appendix 3 – Questionnaire 33


- 3 -

Introduction: Consultation Statement Genesis Housing Group has recently consulted on its proposals for the development and

regeneration of the land to the north of Bourne Mill in Farnham. The proposal includes the

provision of 58 housing units and the renovation of the landscape and local environment.

The proposals aim to comply with the guidance set out in the local plan policy H5a. This

policy proposes 60% of the housing (a mixture of 3 bed houses and 2 bed flats) to be

affordable. Around two thirds of the land will serve as public amenity space and preserved

woodland for the benefit of local residents. The renovation of the landscape will be

achieved with the area being properly drained through restoration of the watercourses.

This consultation process has enabled Genesis to inform the people living in the

surrounding area of these proposals, and also to hear local opinion on the plans being put

forward.

This document outlines the consultation undertaken, areas of interest for the public that

emerged during the process, and Genesis’ responses to the issues that arose.


- 4 -

1.0 Background and purpose of consultation

Planning shapes the places where people work, live and learn, so it is right that people

should take an active part in the planning process. Community involvement is an integral and

important component of planning.

The Governments’ Planning Policy Statements (PPS) set out specific policy on the need and

importance of involving the community as part and parcel of the planning process.

Our consultation process has sought to encompass the principles of PPS1, outlined below:

• The views of local people are an integral part of the planning process and the case for

the community’s voice to be heard is clear

• Involvement leads to outcomes that better reflect the views and meet the needs of the

wider, diversified community

• Involvement can only improve the quality and efficiency of decisions by drawing on local

knowledge and minimising unnecessary conflict

• Involvement is an imperative part of educating all participants about the needs of the

community

• Involvement helps to promote social cohesion by making real connections with

communities and offering them a tangible stake in the decision making process

Community involvement is not about talking to a few, favoured organisations, or allowing a

free hand to unrepresentative vocal groups to block development irrespective of the case for

it.

Effective community involvement is, therefore, a challenge to all parties. It would be

unrealistic to think that all sections of the community will be satisfied by all plans and planning

decisions all of the time. Therefore, any effective programme of community involvement

should ensure that people:

• Have access to information


- 5 -

• Can put forward their own ideas and feel confident that there is a process for the

consideration of those ideas

• Can take an active part in developing proposals and options

• Can comment on formal proposals

• Get feedback and can be informed about the progress and outcome

The planning system is aimed at protecting these principles and people’s basic right to be

heard, and involved. Sustainable development requires the community to be involved with

developing the vision for its area, contributing to ideas about how that vision can be

achieved and having the opportunity to participate in the process for drawing up specific

plans or policies.

1.1 The Genesis Housing Group position

This consultation statement demonstrates the steps taken by Genesis to meet the

consultation principles outlined above, setting out and efforts to include and inform local

residents about the new plans. This report summarises the consultation methodology

undertaken by Genesis and the outcomes of the consultation programme. It also outlines

the ways in which responses have been collated and analysed, and how Genesis has

responded to any comments made.

1.2 Methodology

Genesis appointed a specialist firm, PPS Group in December 2007, to advise on and assist

with community engagement.

PPS Group has planned the consultation to conform with its tried and tested seven point

plan:

• Notify – the community must be made aware of the consultation programme along

with a timescale of different activities


- 6 -

• Inform – having notified people of the consultation process, information is then

provided on the background of the proposed development and any constraints

which may be influential

• Consult – members of the public and key stakeholder groups to liaise with the

project team and put forward ideas and aspirations for the development

• Measure and analyse results – having allowed an acceptable timeframe for

everyone with an interest to comment, the results of the consultation are then

quantified

• Report back – feedback is then analysed and the results publicised within the

community and through stakeholder groups

• Respond and change – the developer responds to the views of the community

and incorporates changes into the scheme where possible and appropriate

• Publish proposals – at the end of the process the proposals are published and

the community and key stakeholders are informed about how their views have

influenced the process

The programme of consultation incorporated the following events and actions:

• Two newsletters distributed at various stages in the consultation process

• A consultation forum at Waverley Council for both councillors and the public

• Evening exhibition held at the Bourne Mill tea rooms

• Community helpline manned throughout the consultation period

• Ongoing community liaison


- 7 -

• Briefing with key local politicians and stakeholders

A detailed explanation of how each of these aspects of the consultation programme was

carried out is provided in the next section.


- 8 -

2.0 Consultation undertaken

2.1 Newsletters

Two newsletters containing information about the Genesis proposals for land to the north of

Bourne Mill were published and distributed in February and March/April 2008. Both leaflets

were sent to around 500 local residents in close proximity to the site. The first newsletter

provided information on the plans and invited recipients to attend the public consultation

events on 11th and 18th February, whilst the second informed recipients of the results of the

consultation and the next steps.

The newsletters were used to introduce the proposals and to inform the local community of

the consultation programme. Copies of the newsletters were also sent to: ward councillors,

local businesses and stakeholders.

Please refer to Appendix 1 for images of the first newsletter.

2.2 Consultation forum at Waverley Borough Council

Genesis gave a presentation to Waverley Borough Council on 11th February 2008 at the

Council chambers, as part of the wider consultation programme, with the public able to

attend. The presentation allowed the project team to explain the proposals in more detail,

and provided an opportunity for councillors to put their questions directly to members of the

project team.

Please see section 3.1 for a record of the questions raised at the presentation.

2.3 Public Exhibition

A manned drop-in session was held at the Bourne Mill Tea Rooms on Monday 18th

February 2008, the purpose of which was to provide attendees with detailed information on

the plans, and on the various components of the scheme. Specialist members of the team

were on hand to discuss specific areas of interest with members of the public. The

exhibition was publicised widely in and around the site and the local area, using:


- 9 -

• Newsletters distributed to around 500 residents, businesses and stakeholders in

the surrounding area including current occupiers

• Letters to ward councillors, with newsletters enclosed along with an invitation to the

exhibition councillor preview

The exhibition was open to the general public, local decision-makers and stakeholder

groups. A visitor comment book and feedback questionnaires were provided for attendees.

Feedback from the public exhibition can be found in section 3.2 and 3.3. Please refer to

Appendix 2 for copies of the panels displayed at the exhibition.

2.4 Community helpline

The community helpline (08456 026 741) was set up to ensure a means of communication

between local residents, businesses, politicians and stakeholders and the project team.

The line provided an opportunity for these groups to speak directly to the team, pose

questions and express their views on the proposals.

The helpline number is manned between 9am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday and has an

answerphone service out of hours. The helpline was publicised through both newsletters.

Any calls received to date have been fielded by PPS and have been formally recorded in a

call log. If it was not been possible to answer any questions or concerns immediately over

the phone, the caller’s details were taken and, following discussion of the issues raised

amongst the development team, the call was then returned. See section 3.5 for a summary

of the call log.


- 10 -

3.0 Results and response to public consultation

The section below sets out the results of the consultation programme explained above, and

where relevant, an explanation is given of how Genesis has responded to the consultation.

3.1 Responses to presentation to Waverley Borough Council

Genesis and the project team arranged a presentation to members of the Council as part of

the stakeholder consultation programme. The Genesis project team gave a presentation at

the start of the meeting, and then opened the floor to questions from councillors. A

summary of these questions is given below, along with Genesis’ response:

- Councillor Michael Goodridge (Blackheath and Wonersh, Conservative)

asked whether the access from the roundabout could be made more

attractive. He also asked whether any safety measures would be needed if

children were allowed to play near the waterways. It was agreed a future

access point from the roundabout would be designed to be attractive and

that Genesis would review safety measures around waterways. - Councillor A.J. Lovell (Farnham Upper Hale, Independent) questioned

whether there needed to be a highways decision before some of the other

key principles were confirmed. He had concerns about the safety of the

roundabout and asked whether Genesis had carried out a full traffic

assessment, as single access to the site might pose a safety issue. In

response, it was explained that there are two potential access points and

that Genesis will consider both routes carefully and consult with the public

on a preferred route.

- Councillor David Inman (Chiddingfold and Dunfold, Conservative) asked

whether boundaries would be erected at the waterway edges to prevent

children from falling in. He asked whether discussions had been held to

see whether the spur off Roman Way could be used as an access point.

Genesis responded that the landscape designs would promote the safety


- 11 -

of the waterways and that the issue of access was not confirmed as both

options were being considered.

- Councillor Peter Isherwood (Hindhead, Conservative) questioned

Genesis on whether nomination rights for affordable funding had been

considered or discussed. Genesis responded that it would be 100% on first

nomination and negotiated thereafter.

- Councillor Ken Reed (Cranleigh East, Liberal Democrat) asked whether

mitigation measures had been taken to look at noise levels for future

residents at this site, given that it acts as a barrier between Roman Way

and the A325. He also asked about the energy efficiency measures and

renewable energy targets this scheme would have. Genesis responded

that mitigation measures will be implemented where necessary to protect

future residents from noise and that hydro-electric power was being

considered from the outfall of the river nearest the main road where there

is an active head of water.

- Councillor Denise Le Gal (Farnham Bourne, Conservative) asked

whether any architectural consideration had been given to making the

houses similar in character to the rest of Farnham and whether this was

something Genesis was prepared to consult on with the public. Genesis

responded that another forum with the public was taking place the following

week, where suggestions would be taken on board and that given the sites

unique location near to waterways and on the outskirts of Farnham the

design could in fact be different to the core of the town.

- Councillor Liz Wheatley (Godalming Binscombe, Conservative) questioned Genesis on what sections would be affordable. Would the flats

be affordable and the house’s ‘unaffordable’? Genesis answered that there

would be a mixture of affordable flats and houses to create a viable

community.


- 12 -

3.2 Public exhibition

A total of 34 people attended the drop-in session held at The Bourne Mill Tea Rooms on

the 18th February 2008. The exhibition was open between 5.30pm – 8.30pm. 38% of

attendees completed a questionnaire on the proposals (and the results can be found

below). The questionnaire that was used appears in full in Appendix 3.

3.3 Results of the questionnaire

Thirteen attendees completed a questionnaire. The questionnaire sought to gain a

snapshot of local opinion on the proposals for the development of land to the north of

Bourne Mill. The questionnaire covered all of the main issues relating to the plans and

allowed attendees to leave comments under each section, or to leave more general views

at the end of the form. The results of the questionnaire have been collated, and are tabled

below:

Q1. On a scale of 1 to 5 please rate how useful you have found this drop-in session (5 being very useful):

How useful (1-5) Number of responses 1 0 2 0 3 6 4 3 5 3

o All of the respondents rated the exhibition as 3/5 or higher, indicating that displays were

clear and accessible, providing consultees with the information required.

o The high ratings in the 4-5 bracket indicates that the exhibition was perceived as a useful

communication tool.


- 13 -

Q2. The proposals for this site include the regeneration of the landscape and improvement of the waterways and drainage. Do you feel that this is important for the long-term future of the area?

How important: Number of responses Percentage

Yes 10 83%No 2 17%Not Sure 0 ------

o A large majority of respondents (83%) were of the view that it was important to

regenerate the landscape and to improve the waterways. This suggests that local

residents are keen to see this area cleaned up and renovated, alongside any

development.

o 17% (two respondents) felt that it was not important to improve the local environment,

indicating a satisfaction with the status quo and a one visitor did not answer this

question.

Q3. The scheme will contain affordable housing. How important is the provision of affordable housing for local people within the proposed development?

Number of responses Percentage

Very important 6 55%Important 4 36%Not important 1 9%

o Responses to question three indicated that local people believe that the provision of

affordable homes in this area is necessary. 10 of the 11 (91%) respondents thought

that the affordable nature of the scheme was important or very important. A further

three respondents added a comment to their form, two of which were positive and one

expressing views on the quality of design. One respondent thought affordable housing

was important but opposed development at this site:


- 14 -

‘Any encouragement of affordable housing in this affluent area is welcome

to give local people a chance to stay’

‘Very important for someone else to have the chance’

‘I am concerned that the housing designs be in sympathy with Farnham’

‘Better to develop elsewhere’

o As an area that does need affordable housing, it is notable that local people appreciate

the importance of providing for this need in a responsible way.

Q4. Care will be taken to improve the habitat of local wildlife and increase biodiversity. How important do you feel the improvement of the environment is for this site?


Very important 11 92%Important 0 ---Not important 1 8%

o A vast majority of respondents recognised that it is important to improve the habitat of

local wildlife and the local environment in the process of development. Coupled with the

responses to the question on the regeneration of the landscape, the overall response

was very positive towards the part of the plans that envisages the regeneration, both

visually and practically, of the local environment. Two comments were left to highlight

more specific issues and a further comment that believed this site should not be

developed:

‘At present there are badgers, deer and foxes on the site and it is a safe

haven for water birds’

‘It will hopefully replace some of the trees which were illegally chopped

down a few years ago’

‘Better not to develop’


- 15 -

o Only one respondent felt that this was not important, however, the reason for this was

that they thought that improvements to the landscape would allow for the enhancement

of local habitats:

‘Regeneration of landscape will assist wildlife anyway.’

Q5. Our proposals have been developed to complement the waterside nature of this site and we envisage this being reflected in the design of the homes. How important do you feel this aspect of the proposal is?


Very important 8 66%Important 2 17%Not important 2 17%

o Most of the respondents felt that the design principles currently under consideration

reflected the area’s character and that this is an important aspect of the proposals. One

respondent commented in support of the area retaining the waterway nature that

currently exist:

‘Waterways to be maintained. Whatever happens it should come through

the pond’

o One of the attendees thought that this issue was not ‘relevant’ to him and another was

of the opinion that it was not important, but should reflect the character of houses in

Farnham.

Q6. Access to the site is envisaged as coming either from Roman Way residential area or from the Sainsbury’s roundabout, with potential improvements made to the safety of the roundabout in the process. What do you think would be the best access point for this site?


- 16 -


Roman Way 0 ---Sainsbury’s roundabout 11 92%Not Sure 1 8%

o All of the respondents, bar one, who replied to this question, believed that access

should come from Sainsbury’s roundabout as opposed to Roman Way. The

presentation sought to present the two options for access to the site in a neutral

fashion, simply asking residents for their own thoughts on this point. Three attendees

left comments to back up their reasons for opting for access from the Sainsbury’s

roundabout:

‘Roman Way access is too problematic – traffic volumes and awkward

exiting into Hale Road, especially with the increased traffic volumes

from the revitalised hospital site’

‘The Roman Way access would be a death trap – children play on road

and around play area. It’s dangerous now. We are already having

problems with more traffic out of the hospital’

‘Reasons: Number of trees to be cut down if Roman Way is access

point, increased traffic, danger to children who play in the street’

o Although nearly all of the respondents opted for the Sainsbury’s roundabout, some did

leave comments to highlight that this access point will need work done to make it viable

and safe;

‘Sainsbury’s roundabout has many issues that need to be addressed,

particularly the amount of traffic on an already busy roundabout’

‘This is a major problem – traffic is already over congested in both

proposed access points’

‘Both are problematic’


- 17 -

Q7. Footpath links will allow residents and visitors to access the improved site and will provide different routes around the site. Do you feel this is an important part of the proposals?


Yes 10 91%No 0 -----Not Sure 1 9%

o In order to give the new scheme a sense of permeability, footpath routes are included

in the proposals; around 91% of respondents thought that this would be an important

aspect of any future development at this site. The waterways would form part of the

footpath routes and earlier positive responses to the improvement of the waterside

walks serve to highlight the significance respondents placed on this aspect of the

proposals. Two residents left specific comments, one wanting such footpaths to be

open to non-residents and the other emphasising the need for links to public transport:

‘If this development does go ahead it would be important to allow access

to non-residents who could enjoy access to wooded areas and the

waterways. Plus a path to Bourne Mill Road and towards Sainsbury’s

would be useful’

‘You will need to consider a footpath link to allow people to catch buses

into town’

Q8. Areas for the community – amenity area for families and a waterside walkway – will be provided within the scheme. Do you feel this is an important part of the proposals?


Yes 6 60%No 1 10%Not Sure 3 30%


- 18 -

o Responses to the question about areas for community use were mixed, with a 30% of

attendees unsure as to whether this was an important part of the development. Of

those who had a clear opinion, the majority (60% of respondents) were in favour of the

provision of community amenities. One of the respondents highlighted the need for a

children’s play area, whilst another commented that safety measure would need to be

taken around the waterways:

‘Kiddies play area needed’

‘Waterways with children living on site can be dangerous’

Q9. Overall do you feel that a balance between the need for affordable housing and an improved landscape has been met by this scheme?


Yes 4 40%No 1 10%Not Sure 5 50%

o Half of the respondents felt that the balance had been met, but a significant section of

attendees were not sure at this stage, but of those who did express a clear opinion, 4

out 5 respondents believed that the balance had been met.

Additional comments: The majority of additional comments made related to traffic concerns and landscaping/ the

view from Roman Way and impact of potential flooding:

o ‘Concern is not, for the most part with your scheme, but worried that it will add to traffic

congestion along Guildford Road – new schemes at Bellway will make traffic a big

problem

o ‘Important that felled trees are replaced to keep noise to a minimum’.

o ‘Still concerned about building on a flood plain’.


- 19 -

One respondent left lengthy comments on different aspects of the proposals. They have

been summarised below.

With regards to access to the site, he thought that both options had problems, Roman Way

would be congested and modifications to the roundabout would make it ‘more dangerous’.

He linked this to future issues concerning the traffic generation of the development. The

main issue was the potential for heavy congestion caused by the hospital development and

the Genesis proposals.

The respondent was also concerned about the impact of flooding – believing that the

current waterlogged land provided a local ‘flood plain’ for neighbouring residential areas.

The respondent recognised the Genesis plans as a ‘good cause’ but was against further

development in East Farnham and the impact this could have on local infrastructure.

The respondent questioned the amount of car parking and aspects of the design that were

reflected in his response to the questionnaire.

A summary of the key issues raised is tabulated in the next section. Genesis’ overall

response to the consultation is detailed in section 3.6.

3.4 Summary of the conclusions from the questionnaire results

38% of people that attended the exhibition answered the questionnaire, providing a sound

sample to assess local opinion. In addition a number of attendees raised their questions

with the project team. Below is a list of most frequently asked questions by residents

regarding the Genesis proposals. These are grouped under four different themes, which

were raised most predominantly throughout the consultation process; access to the site

and traffic, landscaping, design principles and the waterways. The table below documents

responses to the issues raised:

Area of interest Key issues Genesis response Access to the site Safety concerns about using Genesis would aim to


- 20 -

the roundabout as the access point.

improve the safety by proposing an revised approach to the roundabout to slow down on-coming traffic.

Congestion on Roman way The Roman Way access route is not the preferred route but if it was to be used the low levels of traffic that would be entering and leaving the site would not prove too burdensome for the residential areas like Roman Way

Area of interest Key issues Response Landscaping Wooded area kept natural

and protected. This concern was dealt with by explaining that an area to the north would be protected and left in a ‘natural’ but managed state.

Community areas to be landscaped in a way that reflects the wooded nature of the site.

The areas next to the waterways would be renovated and will reflect the character of the neighbouring woodland, providing an community amenity space in a natural context

Area of interest Key issues Responses Design Principles Architecture and design to

reflect Farnham’s heritage The current design principles look to reflect the waterside character of this unique site. Given its location on the outskirts of Farnham and at a different type of location – Genesis believes that a design that accounts for its proximity to woodland and water is the appropriate response

Concerns over the height of buildings from Roman Way

Residents from Roman Way were shown images that highlighted the difference between the height of the land that separates Roman Way from the site. There will


- 21 -

be very little visual impact on current residents

Area of interest Key issues Response Waterways Safety Concerns with

children playing near these areas

Genesis will ensure that boundaries are clearly defined yet designed in a fashion that does not break up the landscape. The safety issue is of importance and will be dealt with appropriately.

Flooding concerns still present amongst residents

A flood risk assessment had been undertaken showing that the site was not a flood risk and the creation of waterway ponds that can absorb flood water will prevent the area from becoming a marshy flooded zone again.

3.5 Community helpline

The Genesis community helpline was set up in December 2007. The number is 08456 026

741 and has been staffed by PPS during office hours between 9.00am and 5.30pm

Monday to Friday. A message service has been in operation at all other times. There were

two enquiries on the phone asking for more details on the public consultation events and

raising some concerns. A summary of the calls received is given below. The helpline will

continue to be staffed throughout the planning period.

Sample of the call log A summary of the calls that were made to the community helpline are tabulated below:

Call date Name Issue Action 6/2/08 Mr Ross

Snowden Mr Snowden believed access from Roman Way was not ideal and that current layout of the

Mr Snowden attended both of the consultation events. It was explained that the access options were both open to


- 22 -

roundabout was dangerous. He also thought that the development nearby of the hospital was putting strain on local infrastructure

consideration. The roundabout would be made safer by modifications to the approach meaning that speeds would have to be decreased when approaching it.

8/2/08 Sarah Allinson Wanted to know what impact this would have, mainly visually, from Roman Way

Ms Allinson was invited to the consultation events and the project team was able to demonstrate how the difference levels between the two areas and the screening of the trees would make any visual impact from Roman Way minimal

Where appropriate, callers were invited to the exhibition and informed of the time and

location.

The community helpline will remain in operation throughout the planning period.

3.6 Genesis response

Genesis has endeavoured to answer the key areas of comment that arose from the

consultation programme. Genesis’ response to the issues raised are explained below and

broken down into these headings: access to the site, traffic, landscaping, design principles

and the waterways.

Access to the site: There was a consensus from local people that access should come

from the Sainsbury’s roundabout rather than Roman Way. However, there were concerns

that it could lead to congestion and safety issues on the roundabout if this was the option

selected. Genesis responded that it is the responsibility of the Council to decide which

access point is most suitable. Genesis wanted to allow residents to view both options and

give their opinion on which would be best for the local area. The preferred choice would be

from the roundabout but either approach could be made to safe and accessible for this

scheme. In particular the roundabout could be modified to ensure speed is cut and safety

increased.


- 23 -

Traffic: There was some concern about a build up of congestion, either on Roman Way or

at the Sainsbury’s roundabout. The Genesis proposals are for 58 units, meaning that traffic

generation will not place too much extra burden on the local roads. The Transportation

Assessment concludes that the traffic associated with the proposed development of this

site for 58 units does not result in a significant impact on the existing highway network.

The proposals do not generate an unacceptable number of new trips, and it is further

considered that the potential for accidents to occur at the junction, and associated speeds

within the circulatory carriageway, will be lessened following the proposed alterations, given

the reduction in the angle of entry and the resultant reduced flare lengths at the southern

arm of the roundabout. Therefore it is proposed that the development will not have a

negative impact on local highway safety.

Landscaping: Genesis appreciates local residents’ wishes to minimise the impact of the

site on the views from Roman Way. To this end, the Genesis proposals carefully ensure

that the impact on the skyline is minimal, using the wooded area and existing trees to

screen the site from residential areas. The Genesis proposals also include the regeneration

of the landscape and the improvement of the local environment. Many of the local residents

were keen to see this happen.

Design principles: During the consultation phase there were questions about the design

principles. Some thought that the housing should reflect the centre of Farnham and the

character of the town centre whilst others thought the site required a fresh approach.

Genesis believes that the character of the design has taken into account the close context

of the Mill, waterways and woodland but that there is room to take other suggestions on

board once the detail of the buildings are finalised.

The waterways: During the course of the exhibition, a number of people raised the issue of

the waterways and issues of safety. Many were very impressed by the plans to have

improved waterway running through the centre of the scheme but wanted to know what

measures would be put in place to ensure the safety of children. The safety of the

boardwalk and the enjoyment of the waterways and wildlife can work together. Through the


- 24 -

design of the wetland areas and the routing of the boardwalk, safety has been carefully

considered. The boardwalk and wetland areas offer a positive community resource,

encouraging people to enjoy the wildlife and habitats of their locality. The boardwalks can

be separated from the waterways in an appropriate fashion, for instance planted with reeds

or rushes. The deepest areas of the ponds and watercourses would be away from the

walkways.

4.0 Conclusions

Genesis has carried out a programme of consultation on its proposals for the land to the

north of Bourne Mill, prior to the submission of the planning application and intends to keep

the community informed of the plans as they progress through the planning process.

The consultation programme has consisted of several main components:

1. Community helpline

2. Newsletter outlining the consultation and inviting local residents, businesses,

politicians and stakeholders to be involved in the process

3. Consultation forum at Waverley Borough Council

4. Public exhibition

5. Questionnaire

6. Follow up newsletter sent to the local community, local councillors and stakeholders.

The consultation exercise provided an opportunity to inform and involve the local

community in the plans for this site. The process has enabled the team to gain a deeper

understanding of local opinions and to help alleviate some of the concerns expressed. The

consultation process has been the key to ensuring that the local population are involved in

the planning process; we hope that it has offered local residents, councillors and

stakeholders the opportunity to find out exactly what is planned and has eliminated any

misconceptions.

In terms of the results of the exercise, it is evident that the affordable housing provision and

the improvement of the landscape and waterways were the elements most supported by

the local community and stakeholders. There were areas that initially concerned local

people – access to the site, traffic, views and some safety concerns about the waterways

being the subjects most frequently raised. Genesis has responded to these issues with the


- 25 -

aim of improving local perception of the site by understanding their views and seeking to

design a scheme that is sympathetic to the locality.

Going forward, the team intends to keep stakeholders and the local community informed of

developments. The helpline will also continue to be manned by PPS to ensure that any

feedback on the consultation process or further queries regarding the site can be recorded

and addressed.


- 26 -


- 27 -

Appendix 1 Newsletter one


- 28 -


- 28 -


- 29 -

Appendix 2 – Drop-in Session boards


- 30 -


- 31 -


- 32 -


- 33 -


- 34 -


- 35 -

Appendix 3 Questionnaire


- 36 -

Genesis Housing Group - Waverley Council Ho… · The Genesis project team gave a presentation at...

Documents

Transcript of Genesis Housing Group - Waverley Council Ho… · The Genesis project team gave a presentation at...