59
1 Thorpe on the Hill OurVillagePlan STATION ROAD FOSSE LANE EAGLE LANE MOOR LANE MIDDLE LANE
1
Thorpe on the Hill
OurVillagePlan
STATION ROAD
FOSSE LANE
EAGLE LANE
MOOR LANE
MIDDLE LANE
2
THORPE ON THE HILL
LINCOLNSHIRE
Our
Village
Plan
PART 1
PROPOSALS DOCUMENT
Version 4. December 2014
3
ISBN:
Copyright: Thorpe on the Hill Parish Council, 2014
The Parish Council of Thorpe on the Hill have asserted their rights as authors
and publishers of this document.
4
LIST OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The layout of this report
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1) A brief history
Chapter 2a) Today’s village part 1 – who are we?
Chapter 2b) Today’s village part 2 – why we value our community
Chapter 3) Village services
Chapter 4) The village environment
Chapter 5) Housing and development
Chapter 6 parts 1 & 2) Highways and transport
Chapter 7) Leisure
Chapter 8) Talking to each other
Chapter 9) Priorities for the future
Chapter 10) Final thoughts – what have we left out?
Appendix 1 – Questions in the Thorpe questionnaire of 2012-13
5
INTRODUCTION
For twenty years the world of Planning has been changing. A whole series of initiatives in
that time have sought to engage people with the decision-making process and to bring
decision-making itself down the hierarchy of authorities closer to the people most affected by
the decisions themselves. These aspirations have not been the unique preserve of any one
political party, and have been given support by administrations of all political colours.
Concerned about the rapid pace of change in the village in the past generation, and wanting to
play its proper role in the most effective manner, the Parish Council of Thorpe on the Hill has
followed these developments closely, and it was keen to engage when, in 2011, the
Department of Communities and Local Government took a major initiative with the Localism
Act. In addition to espousing these existing trends within the Planning world itself, the new
Act permitted, for the first time, the production of what it calls Neighbourhood Plans to
supplement the much more general provisions of the Local Plan. That is to say, they wished
to see a new type of planning document introduced, outlining the policies that will be
followed in small communities (‘Neighbourhoods’) when considering, for example,
applications for development, or for the provision of infrastructure. Broad guidance was
issued by the Department and a number of parish councils in Lincolnshire have seen the
potential value in producing such plans and have embarked on the process. That
Departmental guidance, encourages work by each community to proceed in several stages:
1. Defining the Neighbourhood.
At Thorpe, as with many rural communities, the Neighbourhood is most easily
defined as the Civil Parish (N.B. not the Church Parish, which is often a different
area, and is in Thorpe). In Thorpe the Parish Council applied for registration of the
civil parish of Thorpe on the Hill to be the area covered by the Neighbourhood Plan,
and that application was designated by North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) on
11 September 2014.
6
The Civil Parish of Thorpe on the Hill – the area covered by this plan
2. Preparing the Plan.
In 2012 the Thorpe Parish Council decided that the next step in preparation of a
Neighbourhood Plan would be to hold a public meeting to seek the community’s
views on the ground that the Plan should cover. This meeting took place in the Oliver
Roper Hall on 29 October 2012, and was attended by more than 140 villagers. It not
only encouraged the Parish Council to produce a Neighbourhood Plan, but there was
also support for a stronger community voice in many issues of local concern. It was
agreed at that meeting that the Parish Council would organise a questionnaire within
the village to establish the issues of greatest concern to the community, and then take
the results of that questionnaire as the basis for the first draft of a Neighbourhood
Plan. (The questionnaire is presented here as Appendix 1) The questionnaire was
issued to all of the identified individuals in the Civil Parish and the results were
collected together in the Summer of 2013. Ninety-nine forms were returned, out of a
7
possible 230 issued, giving a very good response rate in such circumstances of about
43% - a much higher percentage return than is achieved in most public elections, for
example. That Winter the Parish Council tasked an independent group of villagers, all
of whom had expressed an interest in helping with the job at the meeting of 29
October, with the analysis of the results from the questionnaire. In March 2014 the
group began the process of analysing the questionnaire results and writing them up in
form that would be useful in the subsequent stages of Plan production. By October
2014 they had produced a ‘Proposals Document’, which sets out the community’s
ambitions in a format that can form the basis for conversations with NKDC about the
production of a formal Neighbourhood Plan document itself.
This document is that Proposals Document. The intention is that it will form the basis
for negotiation with NKDC and that, as a result of those negotiations, a formal
Neighbourhood Plan document will then be produced.
3. Independent Check
Once the Parish Council and NKDC are content with the Neighbourhood Plan
document it will be subject to scrutiny by an independent examiner, who will
probably suggest changes.
4. Community Referendum
Once the Neighbourhood Plan document has been passed by the independent
examiner it will be subjected to a Community Referendum to ensure that the final
document does have community support. More than 50% of the community affected
by the Neighbourhood Plan must vote in its favour before it can be brought into
effect. However, if more than 50% do vote in its favour, NKDC are obliged to bring it
into force.
Once the process is successfully completed, NKDC (and other authorities) will be obliged to
take the provisions of the Neighbourhood Plan into account when considering proposals for
development of all types within the Neighbourhood area.
8
THE LAYOUT OF THIS REPORT
The report that follows is based on the answers to the 2012 questionnaire (Appendix 1), and
is structured according to the answers to specific groups of questions. Each Chapter is in two
parts. The first part explains the issues that were raised in the questionnaire and in the
answers returned by villagers, and it sets out to report the detailed results in statistics and
tables.
At the end of each Chapter, the Neighbourhood Plan team have extracted a short list of what
appear to be the ‘Proposals’ for action, that arise from this public-consultation process. These
‘Proposals’ are addressed specifically to the Parish Council and it is intended that they will
form the basis of discussion for the ‘policies’ in the envisaged Neighbourhood Plan
Document, which will follow. As explained in the Introduction (above) it is the
Neighbourhood Plan - and not this Proposals Document - that will eventually form the
planning guidance for all parties wishing to undertake development and other works in the
village.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Producing this Proposals Document has been a genuinely collaborative effort. The process
was initiated by the Parish Council of Thorpe on the Hill itself, but was put in the hands of an
independent group of villagers who were: Tracey Clarke, Kerry Fagg, Francis Firth, Tony
Magri, Kevin Maplethorpe, Oliver North, Alec Perkins, Julie Perkins, Andrew Riding and
David Stocker. Julie Perkins undertook the onerous – but essential – task of putting all of the
survey results on a database so that all the other authors could use them, whilst Tony Magri,
enjoyed taking the photographs of the modern village with which this Proposals Document is
illustrated. Francis Firth and Alec Perkins represented the Parish Council within the group,
whilst Gordon Kobish, Thorpe’s Parish Clerk, played an important role by linking the work
of the Neighbourhood Plan group to the Parish Council. We are also grateful to Ray Morgan
who has made his special expertise available to us. Finally, we are grateful to Luisa
McIntosh, Anne-Marie Shepherd and Jade Sullivan at NKDC for their preliminary guidance
over registration.
9
1) HISTORY
Situated almost half way between Lincoln and Newark, and a mile from the A46 (the ancient
Roman road known as the Fosse Way), the name of our village - Thorpe on the Hill - tells us
everything we need to know about where we live. The village is what the Scandinavian
settlers of the ninth and tenth centuries called a ‘thorpe’, or a small clustered settlement that
was dependent on a larger more important neighbour. The name also tells us that it is on a
pronounced hill, though (at only 28 metres or so above sea level) not a very high one. The
larger settlement with which Thorpe was associated was probably Doddington, as the owners
of that manor throughout much of the middle ages, were also substantial landlords here in
Domesday Book (1086). But Thorpe developed in a completely different manner from
Doddington, and now, a thousand years later, they are very different types of village.
Doddington has remained what used to be called a ‘close’ or ‘closed’ village; the land very
much under the sway of a single landlord, whereas property in Thorpe has long been divided-
up between many different owners.
The village of Thorpe on the Hill from the south-east (Beacon Hill) about 1820 (watercolour by
Peter de Wint, Usher Art Gallery, Lincoln).
Thorpe never became dominated by a single owner, and thus throughout the middle ages and
into the eighteenth century, the various villagers living here all had holdings of a whole
10
variety of sizes in the three great open fields into which the ploughland was divided (West
Field, Middle Field and East Field). This was another major difference between the two
villages: there was a lot of good ploughland in Thorpe, but a much smaller percentage in
Doddington. This ploughland was farmed ‘in common’ by the village farmers and each
owner had land in each field. The farming of each field would have been decided at a public
meeting each year, and infringements of rules would be policed by the same village meeting.
The three great fields took up half of the land in the parish, but there was also a substantial
heather moorland along the northern fringe of the parish (along ‘Moor Lane’ – formerly
Lincoln Road - and Eagle Road); a substantial area of permanent grassland along the
boundary with Haddington and South Hykeham in the south of the parish (known as
Oxpastures and Dampcarr); and finally, a large wood, most of which is still there in the
western part of the parish at Tunman Wood. Thorpe was fortunate, then, to have all the basic
needs for pre-mechanical agriculture in the one parish. No wonder the village was able to
sustain so many small farmers.
The Medieval Parish of Thorpe on the Hill, as revealed in research by Dennis Mills (Copyright
D Mills).
11
When the Thorpe on the Hill Enclosure Act was passed by Parliament late in 1773, for
example, there were at least half a dozen owners of large holdings in the open fields.
Doddington on the other hand did not require an enclosure Act at all, because any debate
about how village agriculture could be improved through re-organisation was held between
the Jarvis family, their steward and their tenants, without the need for legal intervention. At
Thorpe, however, the large land owners saw the multitude of ownerships and rights in the
fields as barriers to improving the land and farming it efficiently, so they petitioned
Parliament for the re-allocation of parish resources to concentrate each owner’s land in one
single block. The result was the creation of about a dozen farms, some of which were located
out in the fields (Dankers Farm, Jubilee Farm, Skybarn Farm and Scotland Farm, for
example), but most of which were scattered throughout the village centre. Today we can still
see at least some buildings that have survived from Holme Farm, Little Thorpe Farm, Tiptree
Farm, Manor Farm, The Farm (recently known as Scott’s Farm) and Home Farm, though
only the latter continues as a working farm today. By the start of the twentieth century, then,
Thorpe was very much an agricultural centre with perhaps as many as a dozen workings
farms, ranging in size from small-holdings of less than a dozen acres, run by the resident
owner-occupier, to large agricultural enterprises such as Glebe Farm (later Johnson’s Farm)
with some 250 acres and the Wade-Gery Estate which farmed nearly 400 acres in the parish
by 1918 (based at The Farm, Manor Farm and Dankers Farm).
Manor Farm from the north-west about 1963
But the village had already begun to change. As early as 1843, the short-lived Ebeneezer
Brick Works had been established on the south side of the village, and in 1846 the village
was linked to the remainder of the Empire by the London Midland and Scottish Railway,
whose station opened in Thorpe that year. The station-master’s house and the Railway Hotel
are still there, but no trains have stopped since the 1960s. In the twentieth century, gravel-
extraction vied with agriculture as the village’s main industry, but from the 1960s onwards,
both were supplanted by commuters, who worked in one of the surrounding towns. Along
with this major trend, the physical character of the village has changed out of all recognition.
Whereas, before 1945, there had been many more paddocks and orchards in Thorpe than
there had been buildings, in the generation between 1960 and the turn of the millennium,
12
hardly a space has been left unfilled by modern development. And in some cases (for
example Glebe Farm and Topliss Farm) whole groups of fine late eighteenth and early
nineteenth century buildings have been replaced by under-designed and undistinguished
modern housing units. Certain views along Thorpe’s lanes are now indistinguishable from
most suburbs in England.
Houses in Station Road – rural or sub-urban?
The village first acquired a formal primary school in 1899 (though schools were held in the
village from a much earlier date) and, though now re-located to modern premises in Little
Thorpe Lane, it continues to be a vibrant element in the community. The original school
buildings remain today as distinctive-looking houses at the other end of School Lane.
Similarly the Weslyan Chapel of 1902 (dedicated to the memory of John Hunt - Thorpe’s
most famous son and evangelist to the Fijians) also still survives as a house-conversion at the
corner of Lincoln Lane and Fosse Lane. The same cannot be said for either its eighteenth-
century predecessor, which stood a few doors further along Lincoln Lane (replaced by two
anonymous houses), or for the little Ranter (Primitive Methodist) chapel that used to stand on
the bend in Main Street. Nevertheless, visitors are still greeted by the fine sight of the parish
church of St Michael as they approach the village from the south, along Fosse Lane. There
has been a church on this site since at least the eleventh century (it is first mentioned in
Domesday Book), but although traces of earlier churches are still to be seen in the fabric, the
earliest part standing is the stumpy western tower, which was rebuilt in 1722, reusing earlier
masonry. The remainder of the church was rebuilt in a suburban style by the architect C G
Hare in 1912. As an architect, Hare is mostly noted as the junior partner of one the towering
figures of late-nineteenth century architecture, G F Bodley, who had died in 1907.
13
St Michael’s Church today
As Thorpe’s role as a dormitory became more entrenched in the later twentieth century, it
began to lose those places and organisations that distinguished it as a self-sustaining
community. In particular, the village carpenter, tailor, shop and post office have all
disappeared since 1945, leaving only the mechanical engineer trading on the village street, in
Fosse Lane. But, as the traditional facilities have fallen away, they have been replaced by
new and different ones, two of which merit special mention. The village now has a fine hall
(the Oliver Roper Centre) on The Green, which is a busy hub for the village. And, as if to
compensate for the loss of the village moorlands to sand- and gravel-digging, the parish now
also hosts the Whisby Nature Reserve Centre (inexplicably named after the adjacent parish).
To some extent a victim of its own success, both the Reserve and the Centre are potentially
enormous assets for future villagers of Thorpe.
14
2a) TODAY’S VILLAGE Part 1-
WHO ARE WE?
(Questions A1-B3)
The Affordable Housing Needs Survey Report of May 2013 assessed that the village of Thorpe on the
Hill has 233 households with a total population of 605. Of these 233 households, 99 returned a
response to the survey.1 From the survey it appears that there are a total of 255 residents within the 99
households making an average of 2.58 people per household in each of the surveyed properties.
The demographic of village residents revealed in our questionnaire divides into two main subsets,
while the remainder are spread evenly across four smaller groupings. The largest group of villagers
was aged 31-59 and contained 36.2% of the residents. This was closely followed by the group aged
65 and over which amounted to 28.0% of the population. It is, however, worth noting that the age
grouping of 60-64 only covers four years, yet is still sizeable. If this were to be amalgamated with the
65+ grouping, this would create a group of 91 residents over 60, and it would become comparable in
size with the 31-59 age group. The vast majority of members of the village community, then, are
aged 31 or older. By contrast, it can be seen that those members of our village population who are
below voting age comprise a relatively small subset: approximately one sixth of the surveyed
population.
The spread across all the surveyed groupings can be seen in the graphs below.
1 The term ‘affordable’ is defined throughout our Plan in the same way here as in the North Kesteven Draft
Local Plan (2007 revision) as: ‘those households who are in need of subsidised housing because the cost of appropriate housing (house price or rents) is greater than 25% of the household’s net income’.
0-1112-18
19-3031-59
60-6465+
22 22 27
92
20
71
Demographic of residents' age-groups in years
15
The questionnaire also asked ‘how many within your household work?’ From the 99 households who
responded, 114 from the 255 residents confirmed that they are in employment. Of these, an
overwhelming majority (70.8%) of people work outside of the parish. The remainder is split relatively
evenly between those who work from home and those who are employed within the parish at 15% and
14.2% respectively.
Our questionnaire then went on to ask, ‘Of those working, how do they travel to work?’
Unsurprisingly, bearing in mind that 70.8% of people stated that they work outside of the Parish, the
vast majority also stated that they travel to work by car. Of the 72 respondents who specified a
method of travel, 53 used a car to get to work, nine walked, six cycled, two caught the bus and a
further two used an unspecified mode of transport. The graph below illustrates this as percentages.
8.7%
8.7%
10.6%
36.2%
7.9%
28.0% 0-11
12-18
19-30
31-59
60-64
65+
Demographic of residents' age groups - %
14.2%
70.8%
15%
Of those working, how manywork within the parish?
How many work outside theparish?
How many work from home?
Where do villagers work?
16
Finally, residents were asked, ‘Should business activities be encouraged within the parish?’ The
responses to this question were very evenly spread between those in favour of the encouragement of
business activities and those against. 46.5% of respondents thought that business activities should be
encouraged while 41.4% thought that they shouldn’t.
Of the respondents in favour of encouraging business activities (and presumably therefore
employment) into the parish, the majority favoured either small business development (33.3%) or
would prefer the focus to be within the sphere of leisure and recreation (31.3%). However,
‘Accommodation and hotels’ (3.0%); ‘chalets’ (5.1%); ‘caravans’ (6.1%) were not favoured as
business categories that people wanted to see introduced into the village or expanded from existing
bases. It is worth pointing out that all three of these categories (accommodation and hotels, chalets
and caravans) are well represented within the village’s economy already and this may have been a
factor in their being less popular than the other options for development in the leisure and recreation
spheres. Only 5.1% felt that any further small industrial development would be well suited to the
73.6%
3%
8.3%
12.5%
3%
Car
Bus
Cycle
Walk
Other
Transport to work. Of those working, how do they travel to work?
41.4%
46.5%
12.1%
Should business activities be encouraged within the parish?
No
Yes
No Response
17
village.
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should consider the village population profile when making decisions
about the future investments in village activity and business proposals.
- The Parish Council should favour Small Business Development and Leisure/Recreation
uses when considering proposals for new commercial developments as against
proposals for accommodation, hotels, chalets and caravans.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Leisure/Recreation
AccomHotels
Chalets Caravans SmallBusiness
Dev
SmallIndustrial
Dev
Favoured character of future development within village
18
2b) TODAYS’ VILLAGE – Part 2
WHY WE VALUE OUR COMMUNITY
(Question I 5)
One of the most interesting sets of responses to the questionnaire was the answer to question I
5, which asked: ‘what is the most important thing you like about living in Thorpe on the
Hill?’ The results are interesting for a number of reasons, not least because the list of things
people like is quite short: at most only 13 points were made, and some of those were really
the same point expressed differently. In undertaking our analysis we have allocated the free-
text comments made throughout the questionnaire by many respondents to one or other of the
groups of responses. Consequently we are now able to say - with some certainty - what
people like about the village, and by extension, what aspects of its life they wish to see
safeguarded and preserved by the Parish Council. It is not surprising, perhaps, that all of the
responses relate to the character of the village, but our responses enable us to say which
aspects of that character are of particular importance to large number of villagers.
The single most popular aspect of village character is what many described as ‘peace and
quiet’, with 33% of all respondents giving this as their top concern. Closely related to this
value placed on ‘peace and quiet’ were a further 29% of people who gave the village’s rural
character, the quality of its rural environment, and sometimes specifically its wildlife, as the
thing they most valued about the village. This is an important lesson for planners and for the
Parish Council. Something like 60% of villagers think the most important thing about living
here is its rural character of the village and the quality of its rural environment. What’s more,
a further ten respondents indicated that the village’s physical attractiveness was most
important to them and, following up this theme, a full 26% specifically mentioned that they
wanted the village to remain as a village unit and not to be physically linked with Hykeham.
A further 10% were less specific but had the same line of thought, simply referring to the
satisfactory size of the village as it is now, not wanting it to get any larger. There really is
very strong feeling in the village in support of maintaining its independent identity in the face
of the threat of suburban sprawl outwards from Hykeham.
19
People value Thorpe’s rural ‘peace and quiet’
The only topic that competes with this concern with safeguarding the village’s character from
over-development is the 30% of respondents who valued the quality of the village’s ‘active’,
‘friendly’ and ‘caring’ community above all things, and two of these respondents were more
specific endorsing the quality of village institutions such as St Michael’s church and the
Parish Council.
Other concerns were much less evident amongst villagers; for example only nine respondents
mentioned that they valued the village’s status as a low crime area, whilst 11 mentioned the
village’s convenient location for Lincoln and Newark, and – surprisingly perhaps - as few as
three respondents mentioned the undoubted quality of the village school, to which might be
added the comment of a further respondent who thought the village was ‘good for children’.
Even more surprisingly, when considered against the background of the huge reaction to
traffic concerns evident elsewhere in the questionnaire, three people also said that they valued
the ‘lack of traffic’ in the village.
Although this question was aimed at understanding the way villagers view the village, it
might be useful for setting the Parish Council’s own policy agenda. Consequently, the
proposals that emerge from this question for the Parish Council to consider are clear:
20
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should seek to maintain and enhance the ‘village’ character of
Thorpe on the Hill, specifically through opposing all efforts at over-development and
particularly ensuring that it does not become joined to Hykeham.
- The Parish Council should take active steps to safeguard the quality of the rural
environment within the parish.
- The Parish Council should foster the ‘caring’ and ‘friendly’ community that has
already developed within the village.
21
3) VILLAGE SERVICES
The village questionnaire took the opportunity to gather feedback from residents on the
various services that are provided to the village.
Library Bus
As the Library Bus visits the village during working hours, it is no surprise that the service is
not used by the majority of residents with only 11% utilising the service. A number of
residents complained that the bus no longer visits Station Road, preventing them using the
service. Some were unaware of the mobile Library service altogether, so greater awareness of
the facility needs to be considered.
Refuse Collection
More than four in every five (81.8%) village residents are happy with the refuse collection
that is provided by NKDC however, 16% complained about the Garden Waste (Brown Bins)
charge that was introduced in 2013. Concerns were also shared regarding the frequency of
Garden Waste collection, voicing the need for a weekly collection, especially during the
summer.
Public Transport
Over half of resident responses (55.6%) indicated that they felt the public transport services
were inadequate for their needs, due to an infrequent scheduled bus service. In response to
question F3 (later in the questionnaire), 15 people also raised issues relating to bus services.
Eight villagers wanted more frequent or earlier buses, whilst two wanted timetables displayed
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Do you use theLibrary bus
provided by LCC?
Are you happy withthe Refuse
Collection byNKDC?
Do you think thepublic Transport is
adaquate?
11.1%
81.8%
29.3%
87.9%
16.2%
55.6%
1.0% 2% 15.2%
Use of, and satisfaction with,
services
No Response
No
Yes
22
at bus stops. One person wanted to see the inclusion of the whole of Station Road on the bus
route, whilst another wanted a bus stop sign at Holme Close. Disagreement was expressed by
several villagers with the proposal to develop a bus ‘hub’ at Hykeham.
Four respondents also voiced a wish for the village railway station to be re-opened as an
unmanned operation (as at Hykeham) in order to ease commuting to Newark & Lincoln.
Broadband
Whilst nearly 78% of households have broadband connection, the vast majority of residents
are clearly frustrated with the quality of their broadband service, in terms of speed, being
provided into the village. A number of residents who work from home mentioned the
challenges that this poor transmission speed creates.
Just four residents were satisfied with the service provided.
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should promote greater awareness of the Library Bus service
amongst residents via village noticeboards and other outlets.
- The Parish Council should press for an additional Library Bus stop in Station Road.
- The Parish Council should press for improvements to public transport links with the
village.
- The Parish Council should press for an accelerated roll out of Fibre-optic Broadband
beyond the cabinet in Hykeham into the village, in line with central government’s
policy for connecting rural villages.
77.8%
19.2%
3%
Do you have broadband at home?
Yes
No
No Response
23
4) THE VILLAGE ENVIRONMENT
(Questions D1- D3)
Our questionnaire asked residents if they think it is important to protect the overall
environmental character of the parish, and also what weight environmental concerns should
be given when thinking about the future development of the village. Suggestions were also
sought for any project that they considered could enhance the village environment.
The question Do you think it is important to protect the overall character of the Parish? was
answered in the affirmative by an overwhelming majority (99%). Protecting the
environmental character (both historic and natural) of the parish is a responsibility that
virtually the entire community expects its Parish Council to shoulder.
The character of the parish’s natural and historic environment has been defined in planning
terms by the Village Appraisal as long ago as 1980.2 It might be time both to revisit that
document and bring it up to date, and also to push some of the potential policies that it
advocates in its ‘Improvement Ideas’ sections forward.
In responding to the question What are the most important considerations when thinking
about the future development of the Village? (d2) 83.8% of the villagers considered the
protection of the surrounding countryside to be important. The preservation of the village’s
natural environment was important to 88.9% of respondents, 58.6% thought verges were
important, whilst 80.8% valued the village green and its other open spaces. 76.8% of
respondents mentioned the importance of trees, and finally 70.7% considered the existing
roads and footpath structure to be the most important aspect of the village environment.
The Farm (Scott’s Farm) from the south
2 Thorpe-on-the-Hill. Village Appraisal. North Kesteven District Council & Thorpe-on-the-Hill Parish Council,
1980
24
In hindsight, perhaps, question D3 (Please suggest any project which you consider could
enhance the village environment) should have invited comment on more closely specified
environmental project proposals. The suggestions made by villagers in response to this
question were largely ones that have been taken up and considered in other parts of this
report, such as highway improvements and traffic concerns. In such cases, comments made
under this heading have been amalgamated into those other sections.
Of more relevance to what we believe was the intention behind this question, perhaps, one
respondent commented that it would be a good idea to close Main Street for one hour whilst
the Remembrance Day Service is conducted on the village green.
Another resident felt that the planting of more trees, shrubs and bulbs would be of benefit,
however, a further respondent stated that the Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) for oaks in the
village were too restrictive.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%99%
83.8% 88.9%
58.6%
80.8% 76.8%
70.7%
Relative priorities for protecting natural and historic environment
25
Elderly chestnuts on The Green, planted at the start of the 20
th century. This area is one of
Thorpe’s environmental treasures, but it is currently dominated by motor traffic
infrastructure.
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should review the 1980 Village Appraisal document and seek both
to address any outstanding recommendations there and to update the document with a
new agenda for management of the village environment.
- As part of the review proposed above, the Parish Council should re-assess TPOs
within the village plan area and carry out an environmental audit of all vegetation
including hedgerows and areas all public open spaces.
26
5) HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT
(Questions E1-E4)
5.1) The villagers’ concerns
Our questionnaire asked villagers if the parish can accommodate new housing and if so what
the scale and type of development should be.
Views were also sought specifically on whether the following should be maintained:
The character of the village as a village rather than a ‘suburb’.
The ‘green gap’ between the A46 and the village
The rural views into and out of the village.
Question E1 asked, can the parish accommodate new housing? The responses can be
presented graphically:
The results show that a significant majority of people (about two in every three) were non-
committal about the ability of the parish to accommodate new housing, preferring to wait
until they knew what the proposed development might be before making a decision.
However, just over one in five people thought that the Parish could not accommodate more
housing. Only 14.1% gave an unreserved ‘yes’ to new housing.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Yes No Depends whatit is
No Response
14.1%
21.2%
63.6%
1.0%
Do you think the parish can accommodate new housing?
27
Question E2 asked, what about the scale of any new development? Once again the
responses can be presented as a table:
If new development was to go ahead, only a small minority (4%) wanted groups of more than
ten dwellings. If the total number of dwellings had to be increased, by far the most popular
development option amongst villagers was for single new dwellings in controlled locations
(60%). Groups of less than ten new houses, individual houses, and houses on ‘infill’ sites
were each supported by about one in three people (respondents could choose more than one
option which is why the total comes to well over 100%). Only about one in five people
favoured expansion on the edges of the village and a minority of 6.1 % favoured ‘back-land’
development.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
20.2%
32.3%
6.1% 4.0%
37.4%
60.6%
33.3%
Scale & location of any new development?
28
New development can be designed sympathetically to harmonise with village character
Only five respondents (out of 99) made additional comments to this question, and these
responses seem to reiterate the findings of the questionnaire itself. Two people wanted no
further development, two wanted any development to be ‘in keeping’ with the village whilst
one suggested that we should accept that development, sympathetically and thoughtfully
proposed, should be routinely considered.
Holme Close – one of the last of Thorpe’s farms to have been converted to housing
29
Question E3 asked, what about the nature of any new dwellings? Once again it is most
convenient to present the answers in table form:
The questions about the nature of any proposed new housing revealed strong support for
bungalows, cottages and ‘affordable’,3 ‘first-time-buyer’ private housing, each being
favoured by between 40% and 50% of respondents (again more than one option could be
chosen). There was markedly less support for ‘social’ and ‘semi-detached’ housing types
(only about one in six respondents for each proposition), and almost no support for terraced
housing. No-one at all wanted flats or maisonettes.
In the free-text section of this part of the questionnaire, detached housing was favoured by six
respondents, a ‘range of housing appropriate to the village’ was mentioned by three, one
favoured sheltered accommodation whilst one was concerned about the lack of infrastructure
to support new development of any character.
There was also some further free-text comment, with three people offering additional views.
All three were concerned about the two types of ‘affordable housing’ listed in the
questionnaire. In contradictory fashion, two said that there should only be a limited number
of ‘affordable’ dwellings, but the third said that this category of housing should be a priority.
3 See note 1 above
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0%
50.5% 48.5%
2.0%
17.2% 16.2%
44.4%
Type of any new-build housing?
30
Bungalows in Lincoln Lane
Question E4 asked whether the character of Thorpe as an independent village should be
maintained by preserving the ‘green space’ separating us from the A46 free from
development, and by protecting the views into and out of the village. The results were
conclusive and can also be presented in tabular form:
As can be seen, support was nearly unanimous for retaining the character of Thorpe as a
village by defending the ‘green gap’ against development. Only a single individual didn’t
feel it necessary to retain this aspect of village character in all three respects, four (4%) were
not concerned about retaining the ‘green gap’ and only three (3%) were unconcerned about
the views into an out of the village.
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
not to compromisethe existing
character of thevillage
to maintain agreen gap between
the A46 and thevillage
to maintain theviews in and out of
the village
97% 96% 97%
1% 4% 3% 2% 0% 0%
Should we defend the 'green gap'?
No Response
No
Yes
31
The village gives full support to the Parish Council in strongly defending the ‘green gap’ -
here seen from near Pennell’s roundabout
This question prompted little in the way of further ‘free-text’ comment with only six entries
recorded on questionnaires. One of these wanted no further buildings, and two were more
concerned about the increased traffic which would ensue from further development than with
the development itself. One didn’t want ‘cheek by jowl’ development, another asked for the
field at the end of West Field to be converted to allotments rather than houses. The final
commentator stressed the need for consultation with residents, which reinforces the
commonly held opinion expressed in response to question E1 above.
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should favour only new development of small-scale, as defined in
the Parish Council’s response to the map of sites under consideration by NKDC in
their Draft Local Plan for development in 2013 (see following section)
- The Parish Council should ensure that all new development is in keeping with the
existing character of building within the village
- The Parish Council should press for the inclusion of some ‘affordable’ housing as part
of any new development
- The Parish Council should maintain Thorpe’s character as an independent village by
strongly opposing any development within the ‘green gap’ and thereby protect
existing views into and out of the village (also defined in the Parish Council’s
response to the map of sites under consideration by NKDC for development in 2013).
32
5.2) Where might new housing be built?
In 2013, the Central Lincolnshire Joint Planning Unit (CLJPU), acting on behalf of North
Kesteven District Council, consulted all villages within its jurisdiction on a Draft of their
Local Plan. As part of that process they sent the Parish Council a map showing sites within
the village that had been put forward for consideration for inclusion in the SHLA (Strategic
Housing Location Allocation) section.
.
Central Lincolnshire Joint Planning Unit map accompanying their Draft Local Plan
consultation (2013), requesting observations on sites for which development proposals have
been received. A further large site proposed for development within the parish along the
western side of the A46 (but beyond the boundaries of this map) part of which was also
opposed by the Parish Council and consent for development was refused at a Public Inquiry
into an appeal in 2004.
The map offered by CLJPU in the Local Plan consultation process in 2013 showed a mixture
of sites that had either already had proposals for development rejected as being unsuitable for
inclusion within the SHLA, or following opposition from the Parish Council, one which had
been granted outline planning permission in the face of opposition from the Parish Council
33
(to the west of the northern part of CL1061), and at least one that was currently under active
consideration. This map formed part of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan process that was
halted in 2013 and replaced by a new and revised Central Lincolnshire Draft Local Plan
consultation (November 2013).
In response to CLJPU’s initial (2013) map the Parish Council drew-up a second alternative
map showing three sites they believe would be appropriate for development without
compromising the character of the village, including two of the sites initially offered by
CLJPU (CL1901 and CL2180), but rejecting the remaining sites shown on the initial CLJPU
map.
Thorpe Parish Council’s map showing three sites for new development that they believe
would be acceptable. This plan now sits within NKDC’s current revised Draft Local Plan,
that is out for public consultation in November 2014. Site 1 is a further extension to the
existing development at Holme Close. Site 2 is the redevelopment of the redundant Pig Farm.
Site 3 is a further extension to the Westfield Lane development.
34
6) HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT (Questions F1-F3)
1) Traffic management Our questionnaire asked villagers if they considered speeding to be an issue in the village
and, if so, whether they would like to see traffic calming measures introduced. Suggestions
for such measures were sought. In addition, villagers were asked about the adequacy of
roadside footpaths. Projects to improve Highways and Transport within the village were also
requested. The topics of traffic and parking also arose frequently in the free-text responses to
question I 7, where several respondents made specific suggestions. Here, one villager
suggested banning all parking in Little Thorpe Lane (and actively enforcing the ban), another
suggested that parents should be required to park at the Eco-Centre car park and walk their
children to the School from there. But it is not just parking in relation to the School that is
upsetting people; traffic management more generally is also of wide concern.
Traffic has become a major problem for the village
35
Question F1 asked, do you consider speeding to be an issue in the village? The answers can
be presented in the form of a table:
Almost 90% of people said that speeding was an issue and only 9.1 % said that it was not.
Traffic calming measures were supported by an enormous 87.6% of those respondents who
said that speeding was an issue, with only 6.7% saying ‘no’ to such measures (Question F1a).
Suggestions for the nature of traffic calming measures were offered by 66 respondents in
question F1b, along with a further 21 respondents in question F3, with an additional 12
responses given in section D. This means that every single respondent to the Thorpe
questionnaire (100%) expressed concern about traffic! The ideas for traffic calming measures
that emerged are listed below. Unfortunately it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is
no real consensus amongst villagers about which measures should be adopted, but there is
clearly overwhelming support for something to be done.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Do you consider speeding tobe an issue in the village?
If yes, would you like to seetraffic calming measures
introduced?
89.9% 87.6%
9.1% 6.7%
1.0% 5.6%
Speeding & traffic calming
No Response
No
Yes
36
Traffic – something must be done?
List of Traffic Calming measures suggested by Villagers throughout the questionnaire:
Twenty-five people favoured speed bumps but six people were against this type of
measure. One wanted ramps rather than bumps.
Fourteen people wanted speed cameras, one suggested police manned radar traps, 11
wanted electronic speed indicators and three wanted unspecified speed enforcement.
Fifteen people wanted a One Way system (‘around the church’ was often specified,
presumably meaning along parts of Lincoln Lane, Blacksmiths Lane or Main Street
and Fosse Lane), including one suggestion that this should be anti-clockwise.
Two villagers wanted more double yellow lines, one specifically mentioning the road
outside the garage on Fosse Lane. In connection with this, the problem of parking on
double yellow lines outside the school was raised by three people, whilst parking on
Blacksmiths Lane was an issue for two others and pavement parking was mentioned
by one respondent.
Eleven people wanted chicanes, but one respondent was against these.
Six villagers wanted non-specific calming measures and whilst four others wanted
something done about the ‘Rat Run’.
Five people wanted better signage/road markings.
One individual emphasised the risk to children without specifying any measures.
Eight villagers were concerned about traffic volume without offering a specific
proposal.
37
Five people wanted the heavy goods vehicle weight restriction reinforced, including
one suggestion to form a Neighbourhood Watch team specifically for this purpose.
Four residents wanted no through-traffic in the village at all, one specifically
mentioning making Main Street a Cul-de-Sac.
One villager wanted ‘flashing-light chevrons’ but they didn’t specify where.
Five people wanted the speed limits reduced (presumably from 30mph to 20 mph).
One respondent favoured ‘education’ but with an element of enforcement.
One villager suggested the formation of a Traffic Calming Committee. A particular
concern for this person was the inactivity of the ‘Police and Highways’ and the
continual parking on the double yellow lines on the roads around the school.
The topics of traffic and parking also arose frequently in the free-text responses to question I
7, where several respondents made specific suggestions. One villager suggested banning all
parking in Little Thorpe Lane (and actively enforcing the ban), another suggested that parents
should be required to park at the Eco-Centre car park and walk their children to the School
from there. But it is not just parking in relation to the School that is upsetting people; traffic
management more generally is also of wide concern. One villager proposed installing
bollards or similar obstacles at critical points to ensure that agricultural machinery could not
run over grass verges, and would have to slow down or stop. Problems of parking in the
village were also mentioned by respondents to the questions in section F, where 26 villagers
raised a series of specific points:
Sixteen villagers were concerned about parking around the school at the start and end
of the school day, particularly on the double yellow lines and along Lincoln Lane.
Three residents expressed concern about parking around the garage on Fosse Lane.
Two residents in each case were concerned about parking on Blacksmith’s Lane, parking on
the pavement and parking at junctions.
Two residents wanted more double yellow lines without specifying where.
One resident was unhappy that parking was not controlled outside the Oliver Roper Centre.
PROPOSALS (Traffic control measures)
- The Parish Council should press for optimum methods for traffic calming/reduction
throughout the village.
- The Parish Council should encourage systematic policing of parking in the village.
38
2) Other road improvements, roadside footpaths etc.
In response to the specific question about the adequacy of roadside paths (F2), over half of
villagers considered the roadside paths to be adequate; with 53.5% answering ‘yes’ and only
41.4% answering ‘no’.
Apart from the issue of traffic calming (reported above), question F3 also asked for details of
other projects that should be considered to improve Highways and Transport within the
village. Twenty-one respondents (including seven in section D) mentioned projects to
improve roadside footpaths, the majority seeking the establishment of new ones. Nine
villagers specifically thought there was a need for a footpath on, or at the side of, Middle
Lane leading down to the ‘Pennells Roundabout’, whilst two favoured a new footpath along
Little Thorpe Lane. Five people expressed general concern about the state and location of
footpaths, presumably having been part of the 41.4% in question F2 above. Five others
wanted more cycle paths, generally to make cycling safer and to connect up with existing
cycle routes.
Thirteen respondents made reference to the poor state of the road surfaces and the presence of
potholes. One villager wanted improved white lining on Middle Lane and one suggested ‘Do
Not Block Roundabout’ signs around Pennell’s Roundabout.
Finally, one respondent mentioned ‘light pollution’ at night, caused by the bright street
lighting in the village.
53.5%
41.4%
5.1%
Do you consider the roadside footpaths to be adequate?
Yes
No
No Response
39
Potholes in local roads are a source of frustration to many villagers
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should consider optimum methods for the safe movement of
pedestrians and cyclists within, into and out of the village.
- The Parish Council should implement an effective plan for working with the highway
authorities to maintain and improve the condition of the roads within the Parish.
40
7) LEISURE
(Questions G1 – G5)
Our questionnaire asked residents for their views of the village’s leisure facilities.
Specifically their views were sought about the children’s play at the Oliver Roper Centre and
about the opportunities offered by the village playing field, known as ‘School Share Field’,
off School Lane. The questionnaire also collected some information about the membership of
the village bowls club and use of the tennis courts. Information about the use of the network
of Public Footpaths and Bridleways within the parish was also sought, and finally, villagers
were invited to suggest additional leisure facilities they thought the Parish Council should
support.
The Oliver Roper Centre and children’s play area
Of those that replied to question G1 (What do you think of the facilities provided in the
children’s play area at the Oliver Roper Centre), 27.3% thought they were excellent, 46.5%
rated them ‘good’ and 12.1% thought them ‘reasonable’. On the other hand, 14% had no
comment.
41
Two respondents also made suggestions for additions to the Oliver Roper’s facilities; one
requesting basketball/netball nets and the other suggesting that the equipment in the
playground was becoming tired, that the slide was inadequate for little children, and that the
playground suffered from use by too many teenagers.
When asked what they thought of the village playing field (School-Share Field)(Question G2)
only 5.1% of villagers thought they were ‘excellent’, but 31.3% though that this was a ‘good’
facility and a further 27.3% thought the facilities ‘reasonable’. Only 9.1% thought the
facilities at School-Share Field were ‘poor/unacceptable’ (with 4% ‘don’t knows’). This
would appear to be a vote of confidence by the village in the facilities at School-Share Field,
and in the way it is currently managed. Furthermore, the villagers made various suggestions
as to how arrangements could be improved: one respondent thought that better signage was
essential, explaining the times at which the field was available for village users; one was
concerned about the numbers of mole hills, which are dangerous for most activities, of
course; whilst three villagers commented that access to the playing field was not always easy
(reflecting temporary difficulties in 2011).
27.3%
46.5%
12.1%
0.0% 14.1%
Quality of facilities provided in the childrens' play area at Oliver Roper Centre
Excellent
Good
Reasonable
Poor/Unacceptable
No Response
42
Question G3a (Are you a member of the Tennis club?) was actually an error and should have
read, Do you use the tennis courts? There was a tennis club in the village some time ago but
it is no longer in existence: this obviously prompted a few comments like, is there a tennis
club? The replies revealed, however, that eight villagers currently hold keys to the tennis
courts. By contrast, the answers to the question Are you a member of the Bowls club? (G3b)
revealed that 5.1% of villagers were members. This percentage might be about to increase
slightly, however, as one respondent said ‘maybe soon’!
5.1%
31.3%
27.3%
9.1%
23.2%
4.0%
Quality of village playing field (known as School-Share Field)
Excellent
Good
Reasonable
Poor/Unacceptable
No Response
Didn’t know about it
43
Question G4 asked Would you like to see any other Leisure facilities established in the
village? This stimulated a strong request for activity-based classes (29% of respondents), of
which ‘keep-fit’, pilates, yoga, badmington and various types of dancing were all mentioned.
Nineteen respondents wanted to see computer classes offered, whilst 13 asked for local
history classes, clubs or events. Other suggestions made for additional leisure persuits were:
arts and crafts classes, a self-help sewing group, a painting club and bridge lessons. More
physical activities were also proposed including: a running club, cycling club, a martial arts
club and a bee-keeping society based at the allotments. Several respondents drew attention to
the need for a youth club within the village, whilst one was specific in requesting a meeting
place for teenagers and secondary school children.
A number of people recorded their enjoyment of community events like the Jubilee Day in
2013, involving families and encouraged the Parish Council to organise more such activities.
Question G5 asked specifically about the use the Public Footpaths (not including roadside
pavements) and Bridleways within the parish. Amongst respondents, 51 said they used them
‘often’, 31 ‘occasionally’, nine ‘not very often’ and four said they never used them. One
villager said that Footpaths and Bridleways are not very clearly marked, whilst another said
that they had not noticed that there were any.
Parish footpaths are greatly valued by many villagers
44
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should encourage the development of more recreational clubs and
facilities for all ages.
- The Parish Council should foster the village playing field (School-Share Field).
- The Parish Council should explore the expansion of the Oliver Roper Centre to
encourage its greater use and for a wider diversity of activity.
- The Parish Council should promote signage of all Public Footpaths in the parish and
encourage their greater use.
- The Parish Council should encourage the nomination of more Bridleways, specifically
to create horse-friendly routes.
45
8) TALKING TO EACH OTHER
(Questions H1 & H3)
Our questionnaire asked villagers how news is spread around the village, how meetings and
events are organised, and whether such communications can be improved (Questions H1 –
H3).
1) The View from the Hill
The questionnaire shows that much the largest number of people find out what’s going on in
Thorpe through our printed newsletter View from the Hill. A whopping 98% of respondents
said that they read it (although a single individual manages to avoid doing so!) and the
detailed responses to questions about the magazine’s format and content suggest that it is
taken very seriously by villagers.
A wide variety of comments and suggestions were made, and the comments were
overwhelmingly favourable. 68% thought the magazine was ‘informative’ and 52% thought it
was ‘interesting’, Negative comments were relatively few: only 9% thought it was ‘all
adverts’, and that response has to be set against the 29% who thought that the adverts it
contains ‘were useful’. One individual, however, thought the whole thing was a ‘waste of
time’.
The View from the Hill – greatly appreciated by villagers
46
But these very positive overall figures left room for many suggestions for further
improvements. It is clear that people really enjoy the old photos of the village on the cover,
but many thought the magazine as a whole, could be improved. Several people felt that there
was not enough proper ‘content’ (as opposed to ‘adverts’); be that features, news, comment,
or simply a more full diary of village events, whilst one individual felt that even what was
offered by way of ‘content’ was ‘quite boring’. Several comments suggested some villagers
thought the newsletter ‘old-fashioned’ in its current format, and one respondent compared
View from the Hill, unfavourably, with the ‘glossy’ magazine produced by Witham St Hughs,
which has now started being pushed through Thorpe letter-boxes. Indeed this individual
wondered whether we could not replace View from the Hill with a section in the Witham St
Hughs publication dedicated to Thorpe matters.
Several people also commented that, today, we might expect many of the functions of the
hard-copy version of View from the Hill to be taken-on by a village website. Obviously, as
was recognised, such a website would have to be run in tandem with the hard-copy
newsletter, as not all residents use the internet. But, even so, there is clearly some appetite for
such a village website and the survey suggests that the option should be properly explored,
and that the process should involve the editors of View from the Hill.
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should support a hard-copy newsletter such as View from the
Hill.
- The Parish Council should encourage the residents to contribute to View from the
Hill to expand the ‘content’ as opposed to adverts.
- The Parish Council should develop a digital version of View from the Hill which
should be uploaded onto the proposed village website (see proposal below).
47
-
2) Other methods of communication between villagers
Apart from View from the Hill, most villagers evidently tell each other what’s going on by
word of mouth (42%). That is probably to be expected, but we might want to think how
networks passing information around using such conversations might be improved, for
example using ‘phone or email networks. Only 26% of us say we use the village
noticeboards. One respondent made the point that two notice boards may not be enough for
the village and complained that they were both ‘shabby’ and ‘untidy’. They needed some
active management (presumably by someone acting on behalf of the Parish Council).
Another respondent thought that more use could be made of the Railway Inn as a centre for
village communication, presumably by erecting a notice-board in that vicinity, and through
making publicity for village events more available there.
Village notice-board in Main Street
In this part of the survey, as in several others, the proposal was also made that a village
website is needed. Such a facility would certainly improve communication amongst those
with internet access, but it will need considerable planning and will occupy the time of a
dedicated volunteer as webmaster. With enhanced broadband provision at Thorpe on the
horizon, however, now is the time to start considering this important move.
48
Only 14% of us attend meetings in the Oliver Roper Centre, or elsewhere, to meet other
villagers and hear the News, and this made one respondent question whether the Oliver Roper
Centre was being used to its maximum. If we manage to increase the effectiveness of these
various means of communication, perhaps we will not have to follow the suggestion of one
respondent to survey who suggested that we employ Ron and Beth as village criers!
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should press for the development of a village website.
- The Parish Council should encourage village networks by ‘phone or email.
- The Parish Council should review the number and condition of village
noticeboards and produce a plan for their future management.
49
9) PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE
(Question I 6)
An important aim of our questionnaire was to provide information that will enable the Parish
Council to target its efforts in future more effectively. Although over thirty different
suggestions were made, two areas of concern clearly emerged as the most urgent, way ahead
of the others – traffic control and development control - but a number of other issues were
also of concern to groups of villagers.
Top Priorities
Top of the poll, by a narrow margin, were matters to do with traffic control. A large number
of villagers thought this should be one of the two top priorities for the Parish Council.
Twenty-seven percent of the entire poll wanted to see the Parish Council tackle traffic speed
through the village, whilst a further 20% were less specific and simply wanted to see
measures taken to improve the traffic situation in the village. Two respondents wanted to see
action taken specifically against those HGV drivers who ignore our local 7.5 tonnes ‘weight
limit’, whilst five wanted to see some specific measures introduced to control and police on-
street parking.
Parking associated with the school is a major issue for those villagers at the eastern end of
Lincoln Lane and along Little Thorpe Road
50
A clear second priority set for the Parish Council by respondents to the questionnaire, almost
equal with traffic control, is development control. Sixteen villagers (16%) wanted the parish
council to limit development within the village more actively, whilst a further seventeen
(17%) respondents went further by specifying that they wished to see the Parish Council
prevent village expansion altogether. To this group must be added a further eight individuals
(8%) who specified that they wished the Parish Council to preserve the ‘green gap’ and to
resist all pressures for Thorpe to become merged with Hykeham (i.e. to prevent building on
our side of the A46). All in all then, a total of 41 respondents, nearly half of the entire poll,
wished to see the parish council use its powers and influence to limit any further development
beyond the existing village curtilage. Furthermore, we should probably add to this impressive
total, one respondent who wished to see the ‘agricultural character’ of the village preserved,
one who wanted the Parish Council to ‘stop all cheap house-building’, a third who wanted the
council to resist NKDC’s attempts to force housing on the village through its ‘housing quota’,
and a fourth who wanted the Parish Council to ‘maintain the village as it is now’. Controlling
development, then, was a second clear priority to emerge from our questionnaire, with
something like 45% of villagers seeing it as a top priority for the Parish Council.
Thorpe’s ‘Green Gap’ – villagers want to see it defended
On the other hand, amongst the respondents, a much smaller number wanted to see
the Parish Council act to encourage or promote certain types of development within the
village. One said they wished to see the Council concentrate on promoting ‘affordable
housing’, whilst a second was very specific in wanting the Council to promote a ‘housing
estate’.
The evidence from the free-text section of the questionnaire, then, is that the overwhelming
majority of respondents want to see the Parish Council taking a robust approach to
development within the village, limiting its scope, if not preventing it altogether.
51
Other suggested priorities
Although the questionnaire asked for only two priorities (and it is clear from the above what
they should be), a wide range of other topics were drawn to the Parish Council’s attention for
them to consider for action. Top of this ‘secondary’ list was road and footpath maintenance
(13%), and one specific additional suggestion was that the Council should create cycle paths
between Teal Park and Hykeham (a path which would appear to lie largely, if not wholly,
beyond the parish boundary). A further ten respondents also indicated that they wished the
Parish Council to continue to manage the village open spaces, having a care for the
preservation of the village environment, including ensuring that litter is more effectively
dealt with. Two respondents thought the Parish Council should support proposals for the
expansion of the ‘Whisby’ nature reserve.
There were also a group of suggestions suggesting that one role for the Parish Council might
be to foster social relationships and activities. Amongst this group the largest number of
respondents (6%) were worried about crime and anti-social behaviour in the village and
wished to see the Parish Council promoting, for example, more PCSO patrols. Three wanted
to see the Oliver Roper Centre ‘developed’, whilst two thought use of the village school
should be expanded to include more village activities. One suggested that we should explore
establishing a community shop/restaurant/café, and this respondent might want to discuss
the issues involved with a second who wanted to see the Railway Inn used for more village
events. One suggested that the Parish Council should establish a committee to foster the use
of St Michael’s for village events, whilst two thought that the Council should ‘foster village
self-reliance’. To this list of individuals asking the Parish Council to focus on social activities
should probably be added the six (6%) who wanted to see the Council promote activities for
all age groups; by implication, making greater provision for younger people, perhaps? It
sounds as though the one respondent who wanted to see the Parish Council acting to retain
youngsters within the village might have had something similar in mind, whilst a second
wanted to ensure that ‘outlying parts’ of the village were not forgotten.
Four respondents wanted the Parish Council to have the improvement of public transport in
and out of the village as their priority whilst one repeated their demand that Broadband
provision is improved. Finally, one respondent wanted the Parish Council to improve the
way it communicated with its villagers, and a second was keen to ensure that new arrivals in
the village were given an opportunity to join in village activities.
52
PROPOSALS
- The Parish Council should regard Traffic Management and Development
Control as their principal priorities.
- The Parish Council should note the differing levels of support for other priorities
returned in the questionnaire.
53
10) FINAL THOUGHTS – WHAT HAVE WE
LEFT OUT?
(Questions I 1-4 & I 7)
Like all good questionnaires, ours asked how appropriate and useful villagers thought the
present exercise, aimed at producing a formal ‘Village Plan’ (Neighbourhood Plan)
(Questions I 1-3). The response to this question was, perhaps fortunately(!), extremely
favourable. 94% of respondents said that the process so far had enabled them to express their
views. Only five thought that they had not been able to express their views to their
satisfaction. Four individuals also felt that the questionnaire did not reflect local concerns,
leaving an impressive 95% supporting both the questionnaire and the process aimed at
producing a Neighbourhood Plan for Thorpe-on-the-Hill.
Villagers were also asked what issues they felt had been left unconsidered by the
questionnaire, and the question stimulated a good range of responses, with quite a large
number of respondents taking the opportunity to repeat or to enlarge on matters that they had
already dealt with earlier. For example, three respondents emphasised the need for road
maintenance and no fewer than sixteen took the opportunity to repeat their concerns about
traffic within the village, showing how strongly villagers feel about this issue. These
particular respondents were approximately equally divided between those who wanted to see
controls on the overall quantity of traffic in the village, and those who were more concerned
about the speed of the traffic that is here already. A further four villagers were particularly
concerned about the size vehicles and about their feeling that the existing weight-limit was
not strictly policed. A further six respondents were more specific and related their comments
about traffic to the way in which school parking is organised. As we have already seen, it
comes as no surprise to anyone living in the village in 2014 that school parking is one of the
major issues facing the community. Our ‘proposals’ under these headings are included under
Chapter 6 above.
Respondents also wanted to use this part of the questionnaire to re-state their views on new
housing development. Four respondents chose to state, again, their opposition to
overdevelopment in the village, with several of these making more specific points. One
respondent felt there was a risk to the village in having unwanted housing imposed on them
by a remote authority in Sleaford, whilst another emphasised how important they felt it was
to make sure that the village was not linked to either Whisby or Hykeham by development.
A third respondent gave a thoughtful reply about what s/he felt was the poor quality of new
housing built in the village over the past two generations. This particular respondent thought
that a small and limited number of new houses might be acceptable if only the standard of
design and the quality of the houses in question could be raised. Once again the substance of
these comments is included in our ‘proposals’ section in Chapter 5 above.
54
Houses in Lincoln Lane. Appropriate design for the village context is essential if new-build
housing is to be accepted by the community.
Other respondents added different points that had also been raised before. Amongst these
most notably was the quality of Broadband service in the village. Three respondents wanted
to see Broadband speeds raised as a priority (Chapter 3 above), whilst a fourth suggested that
the village badly needs a village website – something which has come up in several
responses to the questionnaire (Chapter 8 above). Related to the issue of new technology, one
villager raised the interesting suggestion that the Parish Council should be seeking to remove
rotten and obsolete telegraph poles in order to improve look of our village. Once this would
have been impractical but with the pressure for up-grading our communications becoming
ever stronger, the case for burying both telephone and electricity cables is becoming
irresistible.
Lincoln Lane –
Too many poles?
55
Individual respondents made a variety of useful suggestions for different sorts of
environmental improvements that should be considered by the Parish Council, such as the
maintenance of footpaths and cycle-ways (dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 6 part 2
above). Several responses mentioned the need to control litter. The Parish Plan group felt this
was probably a reference to the quantity of litter now being dumped along the roadsides
leading into the village, especially along Lincoln Lane and Fosse Road. It is clear that this is
at least partly due to the use of our lanes by visitors to local ‘fast-food’ outlets. Better
maintenance of The Green was also suggested by one villager.
One respondent felt the Parish Council should push for a larger post-box, and there were a
group of suggestions that relate to the provision or better use of other village facilities. Three
villagers felt that the parish council should be pushing for a village shop and post-office
whilst one wanted to see the village making more use of St Michael’s for village events, and
a second wanted to see the pub used for village events in the same way. Several respondents
wanted to see more public meetings and village events, whilst one suggested that the Parish
Council might design and distribute a ‘welcome pack’ for new residents (ideally on-line).
Another villager was disappointed with the state of village signage and suggested that the
Parish Council should clean and repaint village signs and all road signs. They also suggested,
specifically, new road signs for both Station Road and Eagle Lane. Other suggestions
included the installation of shelters at bus stops, and of a dog-waste-bin in Station Road. One
respondent used the questionnaire to raise a very specific problem when s/he suggested that
the Parish Council should negotiate with Water Authority to prevent drainage problems in
low-lying areas. That sounds like an urgent, one-off, problem and it should not require a
parish questionnaire to resolve.
Finally it is worth reporting that some respondents also took this opportunity to make points
about recent issues in the village, which can’t really be called suggestions, but which are
worth recording here nonetheless. Two respondents wanted to complain about what they
called ‘Curtilage’ issues, which presumably relates to the implementation of planning
regulations in a recent case (and it is probably worth drawing attention, here, to the strong
support revealed amongst villages for the current ‘village envelope’ in responses to the
questionnaire and reported above). A third villager wanted to complain about NKDC’s recent
imposition of charges for emptying our ‘brown’ (garden waste) bins. A fourth respondent
wanted to make the point more generally that there was insufficient communication between
villagers and politicians ‘at all levels’: a point we are addressing, in part by the questionnaire
itself and – hopefully - in the politicians’ responses to it.
Neighbourhood Watch
A further question in this group (I 3) was ‘Do you support the parish running its own
Neighbourhood Watch scheme?’ This suggestion also achieved a resounding 95% ‘yes’ vote,
56
with only three respondents voting against the idea and one respondent who expressed their
hostility in words.
PROPOSALS (Where not already made elsewhere in this document)
- The Parish Council should work with NKDC to review litter problems, both within
the village itself and along approach roads outside the built-up area, acting in
partnership with ‘fast-food’ establishments now established in Hykeham.
- The Parish Council should establish a Neighbourhood Watch scheme.
- The Parish Council should review the state of parish opinion on issues contained
within this proposals document once every five years (ideally on-line).
57
APPENDIX 1
THORPE ON THE HILL PARISH COUNCIL
QUESTIONNAIRE
November 2012
A1 How many people live in your household?
A2 Ages of the people living in your property
B1 How many within your household are at work?
B1A Of those working, how many work within the parish?
B1B How many work outside the parish?
B1C How many work from home?
B2 Transport to work. Of those working, how do they travel to work?
B3 Should Business activities be encouraged within the parish?
C1 Do you use the Library bus provided by LCC?
If no state reason
C2 Are you happy with the Refuse Collection by NKDC?
If no state reason
C3 Do you think the public Transport is adaquate?
C4 Do you have broadband at home?
If yes, are you happy with this provision?
If No please state reason
D1 Do you think it is important to protect the overall character of the parish
D2 What are the most important considerations when thinking about the future development of the village?
D3 Please suggest any project which you consider could enhance the village environment
E1 Do you think the parish can accommodate new housing?
E2 If any new housing was to be provided in the village, what scale of development would be acceptable and best suit the village
E3 If new dwellings were built in the parish, what type should they be?
E4 If future development takes place within the parish, should it be designed so as
a not to compromise the existing character of the village
b to maintain a green gap between the A46 and the village
c to maintain the views in and out of the village
58
F1 Do you consider speeding to be an issue in the village?
F1a If yes, would you like to see traffic calming measures introduced?
F1b If yes suggest such measures
F2 Do you consider the roadside footpaths to be adaquate?
F3 Please suggest details of projects that you would like to be considered that would improve Highways and Transport within the village
G1 Are the facilities provided in the Childrens play areas (Oliver Roper area)
G2 Is the School field (a shared facility)
G3a Other facilities. Are you a member of the Tennis Club?
G3b Other facilities. Are you a member of the Bowls Club?
G4 Would you like to see any other leisure facilities established in the village?
G5 Do you use the public footpaths & bridleways within the parish?
H1 How do you usually find out about activities in the parish?
H2 Do you read View from the Hill?
H3 If yes, do you think the newsletter is…
I1 Do you think the process so far has enabled you and your household to express your views?
I2 Do you think the questionnaire reflects local concerns?
I3 Do you support the parish producing its own Neighbourhood watch?
I4 What issues have yet to be addressed?
I5 What is most important to you about living in Thorpe on the Hill?
I6 What do you think are the two most important priorities for our Parish?
I7 Have we missed anything?
59
![RAF Swinderby history[1] - Lincolnshire County Councilparishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/Files/Parish/626/RAFSwinderby19401993.… · Fairey Battle. Avro Anson. They went into action on](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5a78e7f47f8b9a4f1b8e24f8/raf-swinderby-history1-lincolnshire-county-fairey-battle-avro-anson-they.jpg)
