17.1 If sites in sequentially preferable locations are insufficient to address the shortfall, allocations within the rural areas will need to be considered. We know that villages and settlements within the rural areas of South Gloucestershire do not have equal access to key services and facilities. There is also a vast range of characteristics in relation to existing population and dwelling numbers across the villages and settlements. The Rural Housing Review, referred to in the March 2015 version of the PSP Plan (Section 11), did not collect or consider evidence in relation to sustainable access to key facilities and services from villages and settlements in rural areas, relying instead on communities considering if additional growth would be helpful to in supporting their communities. However, as part of establishing potential locations for additional housing within the rural areas of South Gloucestershire, a robust understanding of sustainable access to key services and facilities, and contextual population figures and dwelling numbers, for rural villages and settlements is now required. Therefore an assessment of sustainable access to key services and facilities from rural villages and settlements has been undertaken, set out in detail within the South Gloucestershire Rural Villages and Settlements Topic Paper (2015) and associated appendices.

17.2 Please note that it may not be possible or appropriate to boost housing supply in these rural villages and settlements, due to site availability (e.g. no sites are put forward for development) and suitability (e.g. adversely affected by flooding). At this stage however, a comprehensive assessment of services and facilities has been undertaken across all locations.

17.3 The table below sets out the villages and settlements that have been subject to the assessment of sustainable access to key services and facilities. Thornbury, Yate and Chipping Sodbury have also been included in the assessment, as a measure of relative sustainable access. To assess sustainable access, to key services and facilities across the range of rural areas in South Gloucestershire, both villages with defined settlement boundaries3, as set out in draft PSP Plan PSP51 (March 2015), and settlements without a boundary have been included in the assessment. These rural villages and settlements are both within and outside of the Green Belt.

Villages and Settlements with Settlement Boundary
Acton Turville	Easter Compton	Iron Acton	Severn Beach
Almondsbury	Elberton	Marshfield	Thornbury
Alveston	Engine Common	Old Sodbury	Tockington
Aust	Falfield	Oldbury-on-Severn	Tormarton
Bitton	Frampton Cotterell	Olveston	Tytherington
Charfield	Hallen	Pilning	Westerleigh
Coalpit Heath	Hambrook	Pucklechurch	Wick
Cromhall (Bibstone & Townwell)	Hawkesbury Upton	Rangeworthy	Wickwar
Doynton	Hinton	Redwick	Winterbourne
Dyrham	Horton	Rudgeway	Yate and Chipping Sodbury

 

Villages and Settlements with no Settlement Boundary
Badminton	Hill	Old Down	Upton Cheyney
Bridgeyate	Hortham Village	Rockhampton	West Littleton
Cold Ashton	Latteridge	Shortwood
Elberton	Littleton upon Severn	Siston

17.4 The key services and facilities, set out in the table below, were utilised for this assessment.

Theme	Key Service and Facility Assessed
Food and Retail Facilities	1. Defined Town Centres 2. Supermarkets 3. Individual Convenience (food) and Comparison (retail and services) Shops
Health Facilities	4. GPs 5. Pharmacies
Community Facilities	6. Dedicated Community Facilities 7. Libraries (Static and Mobile) 8. Post Office 9. Public House
Education Facilities	10. Secondary School 11. Primary School
Access to Major Employers	12. Employers with 100+ Jobs 13. Defined Town Centres
Superfast Broadband Access	14. Superfast Broadband Access
Public Transport Access to Major Areas (Defined Town Centres & Cribbs Causeway)	15. Daily service with at least one before 9am and after 5pm 16. Weekend Service

17.5 Each of the 51 villages and settlements in South Gloucestershire, Yate/Chipping Sodbury and Thornbury were awarded points based on their sustainable access to the range of key services and facilities. Villages and settlements which have a good range of services and facilities within walking and cycling distance, have broadband and public transport access routes to a major centre, have the highest scores in this assessment.

17.6 Based on points awarded during the assessment process, a ranking system, displayed on the next page, has been devised to give a broad indication as to the level of sustainable access to key services and facilities within South Gloucestershire's rural villages and settlements.

17.7 The assessment provides useful contextual information to consider sustainable access to key facilities and services across the rural areas of South Gloucestershire. However, it should be noted that the scoring or ranking of a settlement based on this assessment will not be the only determinant of whether or not potential housing sites are progressed as an allocation in the PSP Plan. Further assessments of a sites suitability and deliverability are set out in sections 19, 20 and 21 of this document. In addition the effect of additional housing on a village or settlement's ability to function as a sustainable, high quality place which meets local needs will also need to be considered when making decisions on where and how much housing is proposed for allocation in the PSP Plan.

Tier 1 - Excellent access to Services and Facilities.	Score 33 - 40	Settlements in this tier have the largest range and type of retail & food shops, health, community, education and major employment facilities and services within walking and cycling distance. Settlement population has option of superfast broadband access and good public transport links to other major centres. Based on sustainable access to services and facilities a highly preferable settlement location.
Tier 2 - Good Access	Score 25 - 32	Settlements have a balanced range of services and facilities within walking and cycling distance, for some settlements this will include health care facilities. Some settlements have access to multiple retail, food shops or major employers. Settlement likely to have access to broadband and good public transport links to a major centre. Some settlements lack good walking and cycling access to one particular type of facility or service, often local shops (non-food) or permanent library.
Tier 3 - Acceptable Access	Score 17 - 24	Good walking or cycling access to at least two types of facilities and services (e.g. community facilities and education). Many settlements lack walking and cycling access to multiple retailers, food shops and employers. Many of these settlements unlikely to have access to health facilities. Any settlements with poor access to services and facilities in this ranking will often have good broadband and public transport access.
Tier 4 - Poor Access	Score 9 - 16	Many of these settlements have good access to a particular type of facility or services such as certain education facilities and community facilities. However, settlement will not have access to a good range of facilities and services. Many settlements do not have both access to both facilities & services, and broadband or public transport to major centres.
Tier 5 - Minimal Access to Services and Facilities	Score 0 - 8	Deficient in services and facilities in many of the categories, lacking any access to at least 3 to 4, from retail and food shops, health, education, community facilities and major employers. Many lack reasonable public transport access to other centres and broadband access.

17.8 Greater detail on the methodology and process used to assess sustainable access to key services and facilities from rural villages and settlements is provided in the South Gloucestershire Rural Villages and Settlements Topic Paper (2015) and associated appendices.

 

[3] Settlement boundaries are drawn around existing towns and villages and define the area within which the principle of new residential and other types of development is acceptable, subject to complying with national and local planning policies.