Spatial options

Large areas of the parish may be inappropriate for major development because the whole Neighbourhood Area is in one AONB and forms the setting of another. A coherent spatial strategy is required to ensure that development takes place in a controlled way and to contain further urban sprawl and the closure of green gaps towards neighbouring communities, and to ensure that new developments are contiguous to the existing built area and as close as possible to existing facilities and services.

The opportunity for further development is physically constrained by the River Thames to the west and environmentally constrained by the AONB to the north, south and east.

The Neighbourhood Area in this part of the AONB has five distinct landscape areas, each with importantly different characteristics that together contribute to the special landscape known as the Goring Gap. The five different landscape areas are shown again on the map below.

Focusing all development in one area presents a number of issues:

• Large scale development in A, B, C, D or E would be inappropriate because they are all in the AONB and would have a major adverse impact on both the landscape and visual amenity in the local area, the areas immediately around the site and on long distance views.
• Residents of the village have a strong aversion to allocation of a single large site or area. Over 90% of survey respondents preferred development sites to be small or medium in size and distributed around the village.
• Area A is next to the river and contains flood zones that limit the developable area.
• Areas A, B and E would have a major impact on the green gaps between Goring and both South Stoke and Gatehampton.
• A, B, C, D and E would significantly extend the village’s built-form into the AONB.

Eight approaches that might feasibly be taken for potential housing development are outlined below and considered on the following pages and in more detail in Section 6 of the SA. These options included the five spatial areas (A-E) and combinations of the five site that are potentially suitable for development plus an additional site (GNP5 on the outskirts of the village which has been assessed by two independent LVIA reviews as unsuitable for development) that one developer included as part of a potential new school proposal.

A. Spatial area A: land to the south of the village, to the west of the railway line and bordered by the River Thames;

B. Spatial area B: land to the south of the village, east of the railway and north of Gatehampton;

C. Spatial area C: land east of Fairfield Road including Cow Hill;

D. Spatial area D: land to the north and east of the village between Icknield Road and Wroxhills Wood;

E. Spatial area E: land to the north of the village, bordered by the railway and Icknield Road;

F. Seven sites (GNP2, GNP3, GNP13, an extended GNP6, GNP10, plus GNP5 and the existing school site).

G. Six sites, (GNP2, GNP3, GNP13, GNP6, GNP10, plus the existing school site);

H. Five sites (GNP2, GNP3, GNP13, GNP6, GNP10).

The spatial approaches were analysed for their alignment with the Plan sustainability objectives and summarised in Table ‘Analysis of Spatial Options vs Sustainability Objectives’ below.

Where the spatial option would be extremely harmful to a sustainability objective it is shown in red; where it is supportive it is shown in green. A white box indicates that the spatial option is broadly neutral for that sustainability objective. The arrows in the boxes indicate the degree of the effect so, for example, a downward arrow shows a greater effect than a diagonal arrow and a red box with a downwards arrow means that the option is extremely damaging to that sustainability objective.

For many of the Plan’s sustainability objectives, development in any of the spatial options would have a neutral or broadly equal (positive or negative) impact:

• all options would have a very positive impact on the provision of affordable housing and a mix of housing to meet Goring’s need;
• options A-F would support more major development (and therefore more dwellings) than the specific sites that are available to the Plan and identified in options G and H. However, the neighbourhood plan is required to take a balanced view which supports the strategic priorities of the local plan and does not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan, while at the same time giving great weight to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, and in the case of Goring, steering development away from areas of flood risk. The harm which these options would cause to the AONB means that the Plan should not proceed with these options;
• all options would have a negative impact on light pollution in the AONB and preservation of land of high agricultural value;
• all options would have a negative impact on conserving and enhancing the countryside and AONBs although on some specific sites careful mitigation can limit this impact to an acceptable level;
• options A-E are likely to have a net adverse impact on biodiversity;
• large-scale development in any single area will have a cumulative impact on the adverse effects discussed above, together with an incremental adverse impact on traffic in that area and, in some cases, on minor residential roads.

The table below analyses the spatial options A-H in more detail to decide whether they are suitable for development. It includes a column headed “Considerations” which includes commentary on the key sustainability issues about that spatial option and identifies where there is a significant issue or difference between the options and where there is a significant positive or negative effect.

For each option, the table concludes as to whether it is suitable for further consideration as a preferred alternative or whether it should be classified as an unsuitable option. The analysis states the most suitable options and identifies the most sustainable alternative for the Goring Neighbourhood Plan.