SHILLINGSTONE PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE HELD AT
7.00PM ON MONDAY 16th MARCH 2015
AT THE PORTMAN HALL, BLANDFORD ROAD, SHILLINGSTONE
PRESENT: John Paul (Chairman),Bob Yorath, Paul Clark, John Glanville, John Blount, Craig Oakley and Kay Farrell.
In attendance:Malcolm Wilson (Clerk), Jo Witherden (JW) and four members of the public.
1. Apologies for absence:Received and acceptedfrom Tim Hawkes and NDDC Cllr S Jesperson.
2. Declarations of interest: None.
3.Minutes of meeting on 9th February 2015: The minutes of this meeting were approved and signed.
4. Matters arising from these minutes: None
5. Progress report from Jo Witherden, including work undertaken by URS: JW’s report had been circulated and is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes. The maps showing a potential redrawn Settlement Boundary (SB) are also attached. These documents formed the basis for a wide ranging discussion of the issues.
a) Housing need: Further input from URS had been received by JW just before the meeting and will be circulated shortly. The likely range is between 26 – 36 new dwellings over the period. However, as JW has noted, the Examination of the NDDC Local Plan to 2016 has started and immediately the allocation of 230 houses for rural areas has been highlighted as inadequate. At this stage it is not possible to predict what this will mean for Shillingstone. JW feels that a prudent target of identified development sites would be in excess of 40.
JW suggested that key enterprises in the village – school, Forum School and shop/garage be asked about their specific needs over the period of the Plan – scope for expansion, housing for employees etc. The Clerk will draft a letter, to be reviewed by JW, and then sent asap with deadline to reply of 2-3 weeks.
b) Plan drafting: JW has started on the outline of a Plan but needs decisions from the Committee on which sites to include for potential development, where to fix the SB and which Green Spaces should be protected.
c) SEA: JW has discussed SEA screening with NDDC and it has been agreed to put this on hold pending the outcome of the Local Plan Examination.
d) Green Spaces: JW had walked the area with BY and mapped the areas she thought would be most appropriate for protection. She felt these should be kept outside the SB to make it very clear these are not for development. She felt those sites that provided a visual or physical link from the village to the countryside were of most merit. Areas further out, in open country, were not under development threat and could be excluded.
e) SB: JW has adjusted the SB. She feels this is the right time to make adjustments since the existing one was based on Planning Policies of 2003 and was outdated. Even though respondents to the village questionnaire might have supported the retention of the current SB, they were certainly not informed of the implications of retention or adjustment etc. Given that the draft Plan goes out for further round of consultation any changes can be fully explained – people can then make a better judgement. Any potential development sites should be included within the redrawn SB. Policies relating to specific sites can be drafted and included in the Plan, provided they are well justified.(eg, locating any development in HTL 1 to the south, with access onto the main road, not Hine Town etc)
f) Development sites: BY had updated information on potential sites. Linking with JW’s note the following were identified as possible
Approved sites – 16; Antells Yard – 6; Gasson – 1; HTL1 -8; HTL 2 – 5; Squirrels Leap – 3; Ox – 3; Gunn Lane – 1; a total of 43, without White Pit Farm buildings (6 – 16) or the Cobbles (3).
g) White Pit Farm buildings: There was some discussion about this site. Do the buildings have adequate foundations to enable conversion, do NDDC policies allow them to be knocked down and rebuilt, what density of development (the mooted 6 is very low, JW calculates up to 16 would be not overdevelopment), is the site “isolated”, a safe footway to the village would be required, would County Farms invest in the barns to keep them as viable agricultural units, could a satellite SB be drawn around the buildings etc? It was agreed JP will contact County Farms (Peter Scarlett) to get an update on their intentions.
h) Cobbles: The point was made that tortuous efforts were being made to ensure any development on the east of the main road had access onto the main road, whilst the proposed 3 cottage development at Cobbles on the west of the main road had immediate and easy access to the main road, and the Green Space link would still remain. Noted.
In conclusion it was agreed that JW will write a draft Plan including the sites mentioned in 5f) above as well as the White Pit Farm buildings, Cobbles and Lodge sites. For the moment, White Pit Farm land and Red House will be excluded. The draft Plan will also include the Green Spaces as marked on the maps, but Lawsbrook will also be included. JW’s advice was that it is best to include possible sites in her first draft with a view to removing unwanted sites after further review.
6. Green Spaces audit:See above
7. Report on Character Assessment of the village: Nothing further to report at this stage
8. Report on Settlement Boundary – meeting with NDDC and decision to retain, adjust or remove: See above
9. Report on Consultation Summary: The Clerk is working on this report
10. Correspondence - Kingdom Hall enquiry: The Clerk has written as instructed – nothing further to report at this stage
11. Date and venue of next meetings: Monday 13th March - venue to be advised
12. Close of meeting: The Chairman closed the meeting at 8.55 pm.
Appendix 1 to Minutes of 16th March.
Housing needs
George from URS has provided an updated report (attached), but is still waiting on housing need information from the district council which may not be forthcoming in the near future. I’ve asked him to confirm when he will fill in the blanks and whether he needs anything further from the group to do this. At the current time his research indicates a need of around 26 to 2026 (or 36 to 2031) – but having sat in the local plan examinations I feel this may be a slight underestimate – I’ll go on to explain why (and I’ve alerted George to this)
Local Plan examination
The examination hearings started last Tuesday. Of particular relevance to neighbourhood plan groups was the discussion on the housing numbers and broad strategy. There was a lot of debate about whether the plan would really meet the needs of thriving rural communities. The Inspector said he was not sure there was enough in the local plan to provide a clear enough framework for rural communities, that the 230 rural housing target had no relation to the rural needs, and that any housing may not necessarily be built in the most appropriate locations. So he has asked the District Council to reassess their approach and look at both housing and employment needs for the rural areas and to provide a stronger framework from which neighbourhood plans or an alternative approach could evolve. When the Council have considered the Inspector’s request I imagine they will be making contact with all the rural parishes – but this may be a few weeks or even a month off.
What this means
This potentially may mean that the District Council will reconsider the removal of the settlement boundaries (ie not propose removing Shillingstone’s boundary) and they may even set a target for the larger villages – who knows? It certainly seems to indicate that we should discard the ‘8’ figure in George’s calculations, and if we were to factor in a need of about 10 affordable homes (based on the responses to q7) then I think we are looking at a more realistic target in the mid 30s (to 2026).
Way forward
On the basis of the above – if you don’t want to delay further (which is an option you could consider), my advice would be to send letters to the key services in your parish (both public like the school and commercially run like the village pub) to ask them specifically about their requirements over the next 10 or 15 years – both in terms of site requirements and their ‘catchment’ population (for example, are school pupil numbers growing or shrinking, and what might this mean for the future of the school – do they need the population to grow to keep the service going?). Draft a plan on the basis of more housing (up to 40?) if you can find sites you feel would be supported by the village, and then decide on your final plan (for example you can take a site out at this stage) when you have heard back from NDDC, the services and the community, to submit for examination on the balance of all this evidence.
Mapping - housing sites, development boundaries and green spaces
With the mapping software now up and running I’ve had a first go at mapping all this information – I’ve attached some brief instructions, and also a couple of print-outs of the maps.
There are 3 houses completed or under construction since 2011 (land adj 22 Wessex Avenue (1 unit) 2/2012/1569/PLNG and Mowbray The Cross (2 units net) 2/2010/0091/PLNG)
We can also count off those with outstanding or lapsed consent – although reducing this by 20% for possible non-delivery. Those with consent or lapsed consent: 16 units x 20% lapse = 13 units. These are
DJM Cookswell: 9 units (I think 6 is more likely as being more in line with character of area), 2/2013/1231/PLNG
TF Townsend Farm: 2 units, 2/2014/1008/OUT
WEST Westleigh Blandford Road: 4 units, 2/2013/1325/PLNG
SR Station Road lapsed consent for 1 unit
So together there are 13 sites towards your target without any changes
There appear to be three sites likely to be favoured which would yield 21 units, which appears to be nearly sufficient if the plan were to go to 2026:
CAN (land off Candy’s Lane) = up to 2 units
COB (adjoining the Cobbles) = up to 3 units (these could be readily accommodated on the proposed reduced site area)
WPF-B (White Pit Farm buildings) = up to 16 units within the developed area (not including the fields)
Other sites that have been identified / discussed are as follows – any of these could be could be added to the above list or swapped in if preferred. I would suggest adding one or more in to provide a bit of flexibility (either to extend the plan period to 2028, or if some of the above come under severe criticism and come out / if there is more need identified through the enquiries to the service providers):
LOD (adjoining the Lodge) = up to 6 units
OX (land adjoining the Old Ox) = up to 3 units
HTL-1 (land off High Town Lane north of the Old Ox) = up to 14 units
HTL-2 (land off High Town Lane adjoining Honeysuckle Gardens) = up to 6 units
RED (land east of the Red House) = up to 30 units
WPF-L (land adjoining White Pit Farm) = up to 80 units
I’ve mapped a possible development boundary, the site choices and green spaces (with the exception of the Lawsbrook site which I would like to discuss further). In drawing the various boundaries I haven’t simply copied what was there before, but have looked at the aerial photos and my recollection from the walk around (many thanks to Bob for being a guide). I have taken out of the boundary some of the key assets which the general principle is to protect and they are discrete enough (ie on the edge) so that they can be taken outside – ie the schools, the pub, the halls etc – and would potentially include an ‘enabling’ policy in the neighbourhood plan that would only allow development within their grounds to ensure their long-term retention as a community asset (with some high bars set).
I have also amended the area to the south of St Patrick’s Industrial estate to draw it tighter to the existing buildings to provide greater protection to landscape planting along this edge. Another similar change was to exclude the Manor House and its large garden area from the settlement boundary, because this links up to local green space around the Portman Hall.
I would also suggest excluding Clayton Farm and the area around the Rectory (so as to take a consistent approach to far side of Church Road / High Town Lane) – so have changed the boundary along these lines.
Finally, in looking at the green space off Candy’s Lane, I have put the potential development site ‘sideways’ so as to retain the long view of green space rather than constrict the view from the beginning of the footpath. I have also not included the garden of White House in the green space as I’m not sure this area is really of local importance.
I have also tweaked the boundary in places to take it round what is essentially still part of the built up area (and clearly not ‘countryside’) where this makes sense.
Minor change near Orchard Hollow, Lanchards Lane (to more closely follow developed area on the ground)
Slight amendment to the boundary adjoining Wisteria
Extended area to include built development up to Sunny Banks
I have also included a green space in the ‘gap’ that runs through the Ox and past the Cobbles, which having had a walk around as an ‘outsider’ struck me as potential worth considering (it would not rule out development potential for both landowners, but would mean any development would have to be configured to avoid the gaps). I’ve not included the Lawsbrook site as this to my mind in not likely to be threatened and if anything appears less ‘special’ than other green spaces closer to the village. I feel it is more akin to the far side of Hine Town Lane which similarly is not designated as it is too extensive and not particularly threatened in the plan period timescales – especially if you have sufficient housing sites likely to come forward.
If there is wifi in the hall and someone can bring a laptop / screen, I would be happy to open the maps and give a quick demo to the group.
Plan drafting
Once we are in a position where you are happy to confirm to me the boundary (if the decision is to go with a boundary, which given the above would be my advice) and green spaces and sites to include, I will press ahead and produce an initial draft of the plan. My advice is to go for slightly more sites than you may want to end up with – just to give you some flexibility if one of them falls by the wayside. It is far easier to cut out (providing you can still show you are meeting your numbers) than to have to add another site in that may not have been part of your consultation.
SEA screening
Given the local plan examination Nicholas at NDDC has agreed that it would be better to ask for a screening opinion in a few weeks’ time, as they are taking into account how far the plan might deviate from the to-be-adopted plan in whether there are likely to be significant environmental effects.
NB – I’ll scan in the two maps here in the final minutes
Malcolm