Note of the Meeting 1
Attending: Kenneth Hartley, Ros
Nicholson, George Halstead, Keith Sykes, Ken Hartley, Bob Partington, Bob
Smith, Dave Hartnup, Cath Halstead, John Yellowley, John Holcroft, Jonathon
Ingham, Tamsin Hartley, James Stavely, Corinne Singleton. Also attending from Lancaster City Council,
Paul Hatch, Jennifer Milligan.
Paul Hatch told the meeting that the Council is
about to adopt its new Development Management document, which sets out the policy
base for the new Local Plan. It is also
working on a range of supplementary documents (including the special guidance
for the Arnside and Silverdale AoNB). It
is continuing to prepare the Land Allocations document which will say where the
expected levels of new housing are to be accommodated.
He explained that the job of the council is to
identify land for future business, housing and retail development needs, and
also to identify land which is worthy of protection, ensuring that Council
policies/decisions are in line with the National Planning Framework and
Guidance which they must support. The
Council had prepared a draft allocations plan in 2012, but new evidence meant
that this had to be revisited – including through the recent strategic housing
options consultation. Now the research
by Turleys is to be re-run taking account of new figures released by ONS. This is expected to reduce the headline
12,000 number, but probably only by a few thousand – there will still be
significant housing numbers to find land for.
Tamsin Hartley asked whether, in addition to the base
numbers, the scenario-planning and strongly aspirational approach to economic
development – responsible for driving up the numbers to a much higher level –
were also to be reconsidered. PH said that the details of the approach were
still to be determined. It was agreed
that it was important for Neighbourhood Planning to take account of the Local
Plan context and timescales, and PH undertook to keep the group up to date with
dates, actions, consultations etc.
With regard to Neighbourhood Planning, PH said that
the Plan must be produced by the community.
The Council could not do this on behalf of the community or direct it –
its role is only to advise. It also
receives national funding (£30,000 per Plan) for particular tasks such as
running the referendum and for officer support and advice. The Council itself will not be offering any
funding to Neighbourhood Plan groups. TH
asked whether the group could ask for relevant officers to come and talk about
potentially relevant issues/projects to the village – for example on rural
businesses, rural housing, tourism, landscape, heritage and conservation. PH and Jennifer Milligan said this could be
arranged with notice.
PH stressed that what the local community aspires to
is what must direct a Neighbourhood Plan and its content. Planners specifically will be able to offer
advice on the strengths/weaknesses in their opinion of draft Plans and on how
draft Plan policies are best phrased.
They will also – like other departments – share existing studies/data
(for example on landscape and district housing studies and flooding maps).
He explained that the first decision must be on the
boundary of the Plan; and that following on from adoption of a boundary the key
pieces of work should be firstly to survey demand (for new housing, business
units etc), and then secondly to consider local potential sites – and the
phasing of these sites – to meet that demand.
This would echo the processes of the Local Plan which would also be
looking at phasing land release to support the strategic priorities adopted
through the Development Management DPD.
TH noted that it would be important to meet national
Housing and Planning Policy Framework requirements on reviewing and keeping
evidence of local housing need up to date.
Robert Partington and Keith Sykes asked about how local evidence of need
and the large district (urban driven) figures would be reconciled. PH said that a combination of the strategic
options for meeting the urban need where it arises may be a possibility. He emphasised that if a local community
caters for local need which is justified by
robust and clear evidence, then there is no case for imposing a requirement for
meeting other areas’ needs upon that community – although in some instances a
community may want to consider this (for example if a significant population
increase is needed in order to keep facilities that are wanted by a community –
eg a post office – alive).
In assessing sites a community will need to consider
whether they are suitable (national definition and locally agreed criteria) and
deliverable (taking account of viability options). Planning officers will be able to explain the
approach they have taken to this at the District level. In the end a community’s Neighbourhood Plan
will have, as national guidance states, to be ‘’in general conformity’’ with
the Local Plan and its strategic policies.
Jennifer Milligan explained her role within the
Council. She sits within the Strategic
Planning Team but provides advice across the Council on good practice in
relation to community engagement, and also on Diversity and Equalities. The meeting discussed the importance of
active and regular community engagement in Neighbourhood Planning, including
making best use of existing mechanisms and tailoring engagement methods to
particular audiences.
JM said she
would be happy to offer specific advice as requested. The first formal process requirement is for a
group to provide the Council with a completed application form, a map of the
Plan boundary and reasons for selecting that boundary, and a covering letter
stating that a Plan is to be prepared in accordance with national Neighbourhood
Planning regulations. However JM advised
that the national programme of direct support and advice would only be
available to new groups where the boundary had not yet been finalised, and that
this support was nearly committed (as is the case with the national
Neighbourhood Planning grants programme) and may close on the 1st
October 2014.
She explained that the Council had decided to brief
all district parish councils on Neighbourhood Planning. This briefing would take place on the 29th
October 2014 (6.30-8.30 pm in Lancaster Library), with a presentation by a
Yorkshire firm of consultants (Kirklees) who had undertaken paid work for other
Neighbourhood Plan groups. Additionally
she had recently finished analysing all the responses to the strategic housing
options consultation, and Councillors would be briefed on the results on the 2nd
October 2014.
KS thanked PH and JM for coming to the first meeting
of the group. They confirmed that they
would be happy to attend future meetings, on request, although their
availability may become more constrained if many other groups decide to take
forward Neighbourhood Planning. PH and
JM left the meeting.
The need for terms of reference for the group
was discussed. These will have to
complement the existing terms of reference for the Wray Parish Council
Development Sub-group which will also have to be reviewed at the same time. Terms of reference as well as any meeting
requirements will need to be considered and agreed by the Parish Council as the
parent body. The importance of having
Parish Councillors on both groups, acting as a direct link and able to provide
regular briefings to the Parish Council on the work of the sub-groups was
agreed. TH volunteered as a member of
both sub-groups to review the terms of reference and draft a note for the
Parish Council to consider as a starting point.
Feedback on this will come to the next meeting.
ACTION: Tamsin Hartley
Although collective action is key to producing a
Neighbourhood Plan, for organisational purposes it is practical for a Chair and
Secretary to be elected (eg for receiving correspondence). After some discussion it was proposed, seconded
and agreed that Tamsin Hartley should act as the Chair of the group (with
meeting dates set to accommodate her ongoing study commitments).
Ros Nicholson said that she may be able to take
on the Secretary role if no one else could be found, but only from December
2014. It was decided that KS would
contact another village resident to see if they would be prepared to join the
group and take on this role. If this
proved not to be possible, Cath Halstead volunteered to provide temporary cover
for the role.
ACTION: Keith Sykes
An initial discussion of existing community
engagement routes (groups, mechanisms etc) identified: the Wray Village website
(own site area required); Wrayly Mail; Parish Council, Institute, Church,
Chapel, shop and Pub notice-boards; the school Friday newsletter; Over 60’s,
WI, PTA, B4RN, Scarecrow Festival, Institute Committee, Church (including
monthly Youth Drop-in), and Chapel (including Wray Toddlers).
The unexpectedly early closure of the
Neighbourhood Planning grant programme in August was discussed. A new programme will be in place for April
2015, but no details are available on this yet.
The Parish Council will discuss allocating some funding to the group
next week, with feedback at the next meeting.
It may also be possible for some funding raised by the Scarecrow
festival/fair next year to be allocated for developing the Plan, subject to
discussion and agreement at the village meeting on this next week. This would require changes to existing
administrative structures. Other
potential sources to be explored.
It was decided, given the late running of the
meeting, to defer any remaining agenda items until the next meeting, and to
call this early. The next meeting was
therefore confirmed as Thursday the 11th
September, at 7.00 pm in the Village Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment