Notes of Meeting 2 - 11 September 2014

Neighbourhood Planning Sub-group: Meeting 2
Note of the Meeting 2
Attendees: Keith Sykes, Ken Hartley, Robert Partington, Bob Smith, Dave Hartnup, Cath Halstead, John Yellowley, John Holcroft, Jonathon Ingham, Tamsin Hartley, James Staveley, Corinne Singleton, Carol Wallace, Bill Bowman, Jo Postlethwaite
*      Notes of the first meeting:-
There were a couple of amendments to the notes regarding dates of council meeting, briefing on NP, Kirklees, 2nd Oct for Councillors briefing from Paul Hatch and these notes would be reissued by TH with the amendments.                                                               ACTION TH
*      News, gossip and updates:-
TH had discussed the recent Cowan Bridge application with their representative and this had highlighted that the development proposed is for 50% more units (on a small site) than proposed under the SHLAA – ie in line with the Caton site.  This has local implications for eventual numbers and is in line with the Parish Council’s concerns in their housing options submission.
Link now up to date on Village Website for Parish Council
Ann Midgley had dropped off a recent DailyTelegraph article which was circulated at the meeting and it was proposed that a central record should be kept of quotes etc for future reference and to help provide context for the eventual Plan. Group Members were asked to keep a look out for similar articles for future ref and ‘quotation’.                   ACTION TH/ALL
Eric Ollenrenshaw had raised the issue of the assessment of district housing numbers and the options proposed in Parliament.  Although not part of his constituency, he had highlighted the Cowan Bridge proposal.  Need to contact him and local councillors to discuss the position – possible that LALC taking the role here, TH to confirm.                                               ACTION TH
NP Guide from LCC had been received and TH would distribute to all to review.    ACTION TH
Tom Wolfe had contacted TH to see what stage the group was at, whether we had accessed any grant, and give an overview of his Neighbourhood Planning experiences to date.  It is hoped that (when visiting Lawrence) he might agree to meet the group.  RP said it would be useful for someone such as Tom, with previous NP experience, to review any relevant documentation we may prepare.  The group agreed this would be helpful, particularly with reference to the writing of policy.
Grant funding was discussed and the lump sum allocation of cash funding would not be available until April 2015.  Direct Support funding (ie help with info/prep) from Locality a national charity was available prior to submission of NP application for the LCC – TH has  completed the initial application form for this, detailed form due within 2 weeks.  
*      Terms of reference and meeting requirements:- Feedback from  the Parish Council
PC approved the sub groups T of R and the sub-group are to review these and raise any issues / concerns with TH asap.                                                                                      ACTION ALL
PC also allocated £1000 of funding for the NP Group to cover any interim costs before grant funding can be applied for next April.
Invoices for stationery / other items must be presented to the NPG Chairperson for countersigning before being submitted to the Clerk of the PC for payment.  The sub group must keep a record of all expenditure etc.
*      Other Funding:-
TH attending village meeting re Festival and would see if any opportunity for support may be forthcoming.                                                                                                                        ACTION TH
TH had received an email re alternative funding opportunities – eg Heritage Funding for future history ‘projects’ etc. TH will circulate the list – Jonathan Ingram kindly agreed to review the opportunities / uses / purpose of funding available and feedback to the NP group, and also to keep track of group expenditure (so that money in and money out can be simply monitored).                                                                                                                                       ACTION JI
There may also be local opportunities through local business – NP group to consider who these opportunities could be…  TH knows someone with good voluntary sector contacts locally, and will ask about the funding database that they use.  DH is to look into the Harold Bridges Trust and see if this still is available.                                                                      ACTION TH/DH/ALL
There is no guide to NP costs / expenses because they vary so much with plan content and area.  Main costs are however likely to relate to:  doing the community survey, other community engagement, any technical work/evidence needed (eg design quality, environmental), help with policy writing/review, producing the document.  Referendum costs are covered by the council through a specific government grant.  A working/provisional estimate, to be reviewed, might be around £5000.
Similarly there is no guide to how long it takes to produce a Plan – it depends how complex it is.  The first pilot plans took about 2 years but government wants to speed up this process and is reviewing it accordingly.  It is likely that it will take to the end of 2014 to organise the process in detail and prioritise, as agreed, data collection through the Community Survey.  It would be hoped that the process could then be completed in 12 months – with the spring/ summer roughly needed to produce the plan, and then the autumn/winter for consultation/ examination and referendum.  There are some required time periods for consultation (eg 6 weeks on the draft plan) that do extend the process quite a lot.  Timetabling will be key.

*      Electing a secretary:-  
Jan Cookson was not available to take on the role as secretary – CH will cover until December and review when Ros is back.                                                                            ACTION CH
The role will be preparing notes from each meeting, issuing to NP Group and notice board in PO as PC notice board is not suitable to display a readable copy – Jane and Tony have agreed to let the NPG use an area in the PO which will be highlighted NPG etc
C H will look as social media communication links with JP, to ensure link with PC website and village site etc to maintain complete transparency of information.                             ACTION CH/JP
Cath H to set up an email account –                                        ACTION CH
In line with the terms of reference, TH to email the non attendees to check their interest to continue formally in the group or not.                                                                               ACTION TH
*      Deciding on the Neighbourhood Plan area boundary – options:-
A number of maps were reviewed with a general discussion on where the boundaries fall for this group and the focus of the neighbourhood plan
It was agreed by a majority that the whole Parish Boundary should be included.  However it is likely that most of the final policies will focus on Wray and a village boundary will therefore need to be included. The boundary application needs to go from the PC, and part of the Direct Support (if granted) will be boundary advice.  An recommendation will need to go with the forms from the group to the PC, once any boundary advice is received, for agreement and forwarding.  LCC Development Management document does include some policies for deeply rural areas – eg on barn conversions, and agricultural workers’ housing – and would need to see if these meet the local needs.                                                                                                           ACTION TH
*      The aims and objectives for the Plan:-
Everything in the NP should flow from a clear agreed vision for the area – so that the aims and objectives, and the policies, help to deliver the vision.  To help determine the vision we need to ask questions like - What’s Wray known for (locally and by others), and what do we want it to be known for?  What do we want the village to be/look like in 15 years time?  What should the main focus of our Plan be?
The NP has to be in line with national Planning policy/guidance.  It also has to be in general conformity with the Local Plan.  The summary of the draft Local Plan policies (previously circulated) has various categories including: supporting business needs / community and cultural needs and sites / transportation including cycling, walking / heritage and conservation / environment including AONBs and biodiversity / design / housing including different types of housing. Our NP doesn’t have to have policies on all these areas, but does have to decide what areas are most important to us, and whether the relevant council policies are adequate/appropriate here.  It is up to us what we put in.  Need to remember too (see pre-meeting notes) that final policies have to focus on land use and development matters only.  Other things can be included, but only as context etc, not as policies.
Community engagement /cohesion is however a key part of any NP.  The final vision, aims and objectives need not just to reflect group views, but the views of the community so it is essential that they have a clear chance to help shape them.  DH said views from previous surveys (eg the Parish Plan) may help provide a starting point – the group agreed.  CS said that it is important that aims and objectives don’t come ‘top-down’ and can be kept under review while they firm up – the group agreed.
A working outline of potential objectives need to be determined asap so that the group can consider, in the light of this, how best to debate them with residents, and what potential implications may be for future meetings/the timetable etc – ie what may need to be done?  This is a starting point only, and will be likely to change over time and as more views and information are collected.
*      Meeting adjourned, with agreement that the key matters to be discussed at future meetings were:-
a.    Housing and community survey – options
b.    Potential outline aims & objectives for discussion with the village
c.    Who else might we want/need to talk to (eg the Forest of Bowland, English Heritage etc) as a result?
d.    Community engagement plan and agreeing an outline timetable with the Council
A general discussion re the current Arnside & Silverdale parish survey (provided by the council and being run by the Rural Housing Trust) determined that it would need to be adapted, and this would be the focus of the next meeting and we all would look at options for the next meeting and consider our requirement / needs from a Housing Survey for the Parish and the level of detail required for this purpose.                                                                                                                                            ACTION ALL
TH would also get in touch with the group’s core Council contacts and the Strategic Housing Officer before the next meeting to seek their views.                ACTION TH

*      Date of next meeting is Thursday 25th September, at 7.00 pm in the Village Institute.

*      Dates of future meetings to be, wherever possible, Thursdays 7pm fortnightly from 11th September.  TH to forward exact dates with the note of the last meeting.        ACTION TH

No comments:

Post a Comment

Follow by Email