Summary of Clehonger Neighbourhood Development Plan Results

The survey was undertaken in February/March 2017 and achieved a response rate of 41.2%.


  • Favoured categories of housing were affordable home ownership, affordable rented and private housing. Traveller sites were not supported, with permanent provision being opposed by 78%. Comments emphasised that whilst more housing was not needed to satisfy planning requirements, if some were to be built it should be to help meet a need for smaller and less-expensive homes for younger people and families.
  • Semi-detached homes and bungalows were favoured over detached or terraced housing, flats and apartments; and homes with 2 or 3 bedrooms were favoured over larger properties. These preferences were supported in comments, which also pointed to the need for a mix of new housing to best meet community requirements.
  • Designs that were energy-efficient and which were in character with their surroundings were supported, with mixed views on modern designs. Three-storey houses were not favoured.
  • Most respondents wanted to see new housing connected to mains drainage, have off-road parking or garage for at least one car, and be provided with a garden.
  • In terms of the amount of new housing, only limited further provision was supported taking into account existing planning permissions. Many comments again pointed out that more housing was not needed; others that new housing should be affordable and help meet local needs.
  • Most thought that new homes should be built in small developments of between 2 and 5 dwellings. There was little support for schemes in excess of 80 dwellings. Comments endorsed the preference for small and medium clusters of new development over larger schemes. There were also concerns that infrastructure in the widest sense should be available in step with new buildings – sewerage and drainage, community services, local employment, and transport.

Recreation, leisure and services

  • There was significant support for the objectives of improving the village hall and playing field, followed by maintenance of the Church; allotments were least-favoured.
  • The most important services to respondents were broadband connection, a local doctor’s surgery, mobile phone reception and village crime prevention schemes; least important were drop-in sessions for advice and a voluntary library.
  • Comments on this topic covered a wide range of issues. Ways of improving the giving of information to the community attracted most attention, followed by broadband availability and speed.


  • Built environment key objectives were energy efficiency, traffic speed reduction and retaining the identity of village and hamlets; securing quiet lane status was seen as least important. Traffic speeds and means of reducing it were the main focus of comments.
  • Natural environment key objectives were managing surface water run-off from development to avoid flooding and to protect water quality. Most other environmental objectives were also seen as important. Comments addressed a wide range of environmental concerns with no one issue to the fore.
  • Community environment key objectives were sense of security, rural landscape, the school, infrastructure, green spaces and air quality. Most other objectives were also seen as important. Comments focussed on various aspects of rural life and living in Clehonger, with the possible impact of new development a recurring concern.


  • Business objectives, particularly increased employment opportunities, were well-supported.
  • Tourism was not seen as a significant growth opportunity.
  • Traditional farming was seen as very important, with relatively little support for intensive farming or industrial farm diversification. However, comments encompassed varying points of view, particularly on intensive farming.

Transport/road safety

  • Key transport objectives were road maintenance and road safety in new developments. Road maintenance was important or very important to 95%.
  • Community transport, public transport, speed reduction measures and school parking solutions were also well-supported. Cycleways and pedestrian routes were seen as being of the relative lowest priority although these were still important/very important to three-quarters.
  • Comments emphasised difficulties around drop-off and pick-up times at the school, together with the need for traffic speed reduction and other issues around cycleways, road maintenance and public and community transport.


  • Compared to 2011 Census data for the Neighbourhood Area, age groups up to and including 40-49 were under-represented against the 2011 Census. The 70+ age group, a quarter of the usual resident population at the time of the Census, accounted for 37% of responses.