The Chedworth Society

This is the response the Chedworth Society has received from the CLT Board on its original questions raised. It is also available on a Facebook group “CLT Proposal for Affordable Housing - The Parish Poll” as a topic  CLT responses to Chedworth Society Question”. This is where you should look for any additional information in making your decision on how to vote in the Parish Poll on April 16.

 The questions and comments are those received by the Society from various of its members.The answers are from the CLT Board.

Chedworth Affordable Housing Project

Answers to the questions and comments raised by the Chedworth Society


• I fear the secretive attitude of the CLT
A. Since the CLT was formally established as a Limited Company at the start of 2009, it has held two public Village meetings, has regularly updated the Parish Council and has written updating articles for the Hill & Valley Magazine. Membership is open to all on the electoral role who support the aims of the CLT

• The affordable housing appears to extend to most of the publicly owned land, why is so much needed? What other lands were considered? Why were they overruled? The villagers have a right to know in order to come to a rational decision on these proposals
A. The land is not “publicly owned” but is owned by the Parish Council and, as the plan reveals, the proposed development will take up only a small proportion of the total site. The Annual Parish Meeting of 2008 sought views on the future use of the Parish Council's land and affordable housing was one of the more popular suggestions. Other sites were considered but rejected by the Board of the CLT for a variety of good reasons. The sites were offered by private individuals whose confidentiality the CLT has been obliged to respect Only 2 sites(including the Parish Council land)were considered by the Cotswold District Council Planning Officers to meet the criteria for Rural Exception sites for affordable housing.

• The CLT is trying to rush the process with a piecemeal solution
A. It takes a long time to put together a housing project, particularly by a voluntary body. In its first year Members of the CLT have attended conferences, liaised with the National CLT organisation, the Housing and Communities Association, other CLT’s such as ours, the Tudor Trust, the Venturesome Trust, the Charity Bank, the Charities Aid Foundation, the Charities Commission and the CDC Planning Department It has appointed surveyors, and instructed architect and solicitors. Much work has gone into this, the learning curve is still steep and in order to maintain progress, we must keep moving forward. There is an urgent need for the affordable housing we are seeking to provide.

• Consultation on such an important matter for the village has been rushed, and the speed is cause for concern and sufficient to challenge and further question the CLT
A. We had thought our efforts as stated in the first point above, were sufficient and suggest that this point has been raised by those who have, for whatever reason, failed to notice the happenings mentioned above.

• Like many others I wonder why the rush to come to a decision that we may regret at leisure
A. Please see previous answers. 

• More open public consultation is needed
A. Please see previous answers. 

• Are there alternative uses for the Parish Council site, which would be of more benefit to the village?
A. There were alternative suggestions. The tennis courts are on land allocated by the PC, similarly the community gardens. Other interested patties could apply if they wished to do so. 

• I am concerned that other sites which may or may not have been considered have not been made public
A. As stated above, the reason is confidentiality. General knowledge about this could well have commercial implications. The CLT considered that obtaining planning permission to build on private land could well open the door for less desirable housing to come into the village.

• Why are there no options using private land? Perhaps because the proposal doesn’t make sound economic sense and only works if we the parishioners agree to give up our rights to our land, without compensation
A. Please see previous answers on this topic. As for making economic sense, the money is out there at the moment and we are making every effort to get our fair share but it isn't easy. The current political climate is such that there may not be so much funding available after the election. The “parishioners” as such have no rights to the land; it belongs to the Parish Council and the objective of providing affordable housing is to ensure that the community as a whole benefits by maintaining the vitality of the village.

• I am bemused at the whole idea of public funds being used to tinker with market economics and for the benefit of quite a small minority
A. A valid point of view but not one with which we agree. I hope the day never comes when the majority stops aiding the minorities.

• Lack of a Village Design Statement seems to be at the root of the problem. This would be a mechanism to provide a holistic approach to issues in the village, and would allow everyone to express a view
A. An interesting point but in view of the National Housing Plan/Edict/Target, which lists villages such as ours as non-viable for future development, we doubt it would be able to produce anything very productive. The CLT has taken the only route permitted in order to get through planning . At the Parish Council meeting on Monday, 23rd March, the CLT requested a Parish Poll to enable all villagers to approve or disapprove with the proposed location for the houses. If there is a strong dosapproval vote, the CLT will have to consider it's position and the whole project may be put in jeopardy. If there is a strong approval vote, the CLT will be in a stronger position to persuade the planners to drop their preference for the site immediately alongside the Village Hall, a location that raised strong negative feelings at the CLT's open meeting.

• What is the point of affordable housing if you have no public transport and need a car?
A. I suspect this point ties in with a miss-understanding of the project. There are basically three types of housing. Open Market (privately owned or buy-to-rent), Intermediate (Rented or equity share, normally run by Registered Social Landlords), and Social Housing (formerly council housing, now normally run by Housing Associations). The term “affordable housing” generally covers the last two categories. The CLT is in the Intermediate market and all occupants will have to be gainfully employed or have a secure income from other sources. 

• Could this project be put close to A429 where buses, albeit infrequent, are available
A. Yes, it could, and had such land been available we would have considered it. However getting planning permission would have been more difficult and we suspect there would have been objections that it was too far from the Village Hall and associated community activities; the school; the pub; the church; etc.

• I fear there are many cans of worms being opened up here which could cause decades of friction within the village if the development is rushed into being
A. Every action in life has the danger of unforeseen consequences. However, that could be a recipe for doing nothing. There is a saying that “any organisation must grow or die, standing still is not a option”. A bit extreme perhaps but, like most sayings, there is a grain of truth in there somewhere. Please see previous answer to the allegation of rush.

• Was there some talk of business units at some time? If more people could work in the village, housing them becomes more of an issue
A. Yes there was, why it fell through, we don't know. They featured in our early discussions but we were advised that the planners would look less favourably on a mixed development. Once loans are cleared, we foresee an income stream from ongoing rents being available which could possibly be used to to fund schemes such as this. We are probably looking some 20 years ahead but if, meanwhile, the demand comes up, the CLT would be delighted to share it's experience and growing expertise with any group who would like to get such a project started. There are other CLT’s in the country who have business premises as their objective.

• Can the houses be sublet? Who is permitted to occupy? Just Chedworth residents or anybody? What safeguards are there to prevent them being occupied by problem families who could damage our village life and security
A. No, the houses cannot be sublet. The houses are for the use of Chedworth residents or people with a strong Chedworth connection only. They will be under the control of the Chedworth CLT and are intended to be for the use of the village in perpetuity.

• I think there should be allocation for a lot more residential parking. We need to think for 50 years from now to avoid the chaos we see at the Hemplands today
A. We have to consider Planning, who favour one place per household; cost; appearance; access and Highways Department. Currently we are favouring the use of grass-crete as used at the side of the Village Hall. However, all of the foregoing considerations come into play. We don't recognise “chaos at the Hemplands”. There are usually spare places even at night.

• I fear a parking overflow onto the village hall and surrounding area; the designs / plans put forward are unrealistic
A. Please see previous answer.

• Working on at least 2 vehicles per household, plus allowing for visitors & growing families, at least 2 1/2 parking places per house are needed. Otherwise we will finish up with parking chaos with vehicles on the Fields Road & in the Village Hall parking area as permanent features
A. Please see previous answer.

• A large area to the North of the proposed 7(?) new affordable homes is designated as Community Orchard. Who will pay for the planting? Who will maintain it? Who will benefit from the produce of the "orchard"? 
A. Where the proposed Community Orchard might be sited does not come within the CLT's bailiwick. This is one for the PC and the Planning Department. Please bear in mind that the illustration shown was an architect's impression of how things might be laid out, not a firm and final plan. It is our Architect's job at this stage to come up with ideas / proposals.

• The new houses appear to be crowding out the allotments will they be sacrificed to the altar of Affordable Housing?
A. We have liaised with the Community Gardens committee and they are supporting the CLT's proposals. The proposed new development will abut but not encroach upon the existing community gardens. However, as indicated previously, a strong connection with the village will be a precondition for any successful application.

• What are the terms & conditions for potential occupation of the new houses?
A. We have had a first stab at an allocation policy after looking at those used by other CLT’s. This is currently with our Solicitors and we are waiting for them to come back with their comments. No doubt this will need reviewing.

• What covenants apply to this land by those who gave it to the village? Are their wishes being maintained? If not, should not natural justice ensure that any subsequent financial gain by selling the properties go to the benefactors’ estates?
A. The land was not given, but purchased by the Parish Council. There are no covenants and our Councillor, David Broad, has published the history of this land in April’s Hill & Valley magazine. Our intentions are that occupiers will be able to part purchase on an equity share basis. On leaving, they must either find a buyer on our waiting list or sell back to the CLT. Whether or not they make a profit will depend on movements of the housing market as a whole. Meanwhile, the CLT (and thus the village) will have benefited from the use of their money in reducing the amount of the outstanding loan. The details of this equity share scheme have yet to be worked out but it will be limited to a percentage of “affordable” value.

• Can the occupants sell on the open market? How soon after occupation? Who makes a profit? Can the profit be returned the village community for the village to decide how it is best used? After all we appear (through the Parish Council) to be giving this land to the CLT
A. No. The properties cannot be sold on the open market. If any property is owned under a shared equity agreement, it must ultimately be returned to the CLT for onward allocation. As previously indicated, the houses belong to the village, through the CLT, and will remain so.

• These questions need to be considered by the whole community
A. We are more than happy for these questions and answers to be distributed as widely as possible. Indeed, we will, ourselves, be considering ways in which we can assist with the dissemination of this information and would like to thank the Chedworth Society for letting us have sight of the questions.