19 May 2013
John Good Day
Like most people at weekends I try to relax and recharge for the pressures of the week ahead therefore I am not, today, responding to all the issues raised in your communication. Your concerns are well founded and shared by residents and our local pressure group - first raised during the consultation period of the outline planning application over a year ago
Time does not standstill even less so in planning terms and I believe it is important not to raise residents expectation’s that fighting spirit alone will achieve the conclusion that they want for the following reasons.
1 The site already has the benefit of outline planning.
2 The Joint Core Strategy is in disarray allowing developers to drive local housing requirements apropos the Lymington Barn Site.
3 We cannot rely on the recently introduced Localism Act because we are not at the moment producing a Neighbouring Plan.
4 We must not overestimate the power of the Parish Council to residents when the actual decision is taken at Penns Place.
The Council decided Wednesday that the developer had not addressed any of the issues in fact we agreed it was a blatant disregard of the concerns that were raised - to this end I proposed a meeting with Senior Planning Officer.
My response to your urgent request will allow you to make arrangements to attend a meeting when the time and place have been agreed (during the working hours) as you will desperately want to make your points.
The invitation will be open to all Councillors so read your e-mails from the Clerk!!!!
Regards
Bryan
31 May 2013
Sarah Good Day
Yes please.
The Council (not me!) needs a PO response to every issue raised.
If you could pinpoint on a local map looking north from Old Down Wood
Ropley/FM border and middle of Blackberry Lane lookiny S /W ish.
Regards
Bryan
Sent from my iPad
On 31 May 2013, at 10:12, "Sarah Goudie" < > wrote:
Bryan,
See email below from Tony Whitty, do we want him to take him up on his offer in the last paragraph?
Regards,
Sarah Goudie
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:Sarah Goudie
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Meeting with Tony Whitty, EHDC, Tuesday 21st May
Sarah,
Thanks for this, there are an number of points I feel I should clarify, to avoid them being taken out of context, I'll do this when I reply to the other questions. I'll leave it up to you as to whether you want to amend the minutes as a result, they are your minutes after all.
Regarding the issues raised, I am meeting with the applicants next Monday, I hope to be able to come back to you shortly after that, I'm mindful of your Wednesday deadline.
One last matter, I offered to visit certain viewpoints from the surrounding landscape if provided on a plan. Is this something the Council want me to take up? If so, when would you be able to provide me with these locations?
Thanks
Kind regards
Tony Whitty
District Team Manager
East Hampshire District Council
Penns PlacePetersfieldGU31 4EX
Direct Tel: 01730 234232 Direct Fax: 01730 234348
-
Information in this message is confidential and may be
privileged. It is intended solely for the person to whom
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender, and please delete the message from your
system immediately.
-----"Sarah Goudie" < > wrote: -----
Date: 28/05/2013 11:38
Subject: Meeting with Tony Whitty, EHDC, Tuesday 21st May
Councillors,
Please find attached the notes from the meeting last week with Tony Whitty from EHDC. I have also attached a copy of Cllr Hammonds questions that he raised with Mr Whitty, a copy of these questions have since been forwarded to Mr Whitty,which hehas agreed to respond to as soon as he possibly can.
For those who attended, Mr Whitty did apologise again for his late arrival.
Kind regards,
Sarah Goudie
Sarah
You didn't need to apologise - JH's issues were always going
to be dealt with from his submitted list to the PO!
Regards
Bryan
Sent from my iPad
On 31 May 2013, at 10:47, "Sarah Goudie" > wrote:
John,
Firstly my apologies for omitting to mention the photographs that were presented, and I am happy to add the contents of your email to the notes as an addendum. As you say, it is not easy to note everything that was said, especially when people are all talking at the same time. I did not add all your questions to my notesas they were enclosed as a separate document, and Tony Whitty agreed at the meetingto respond formally to them.
With reference to the email I sent to Tony Whitty, I forwarded your sheet of questions, as instructed,confirming that he had agreed to provide a formal response and requested that we receive it in good time so as to have it for our planning meeting on the 5th June 2013.
Tony Whitty has now responded, he has a meeting with the applicants on Monday, and will come back to us shortly after that, he is mindful of our Wednesday deadline. As soon as I receive his response I will forward it, so everyone has this information prior to the meeting on Wednesday.
Regards,
Sarah Goudie
Sarah Goudie
Clerk to Four Marks Parish Council
01420 768284
----- Forwarded Message -----
From:bryan timms To: JohnHammond <
Cc:Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013, 14:21
Subject: Re: Planning Meeting - 5th June 2013
I have just returned from a few days away - fetching the sun!
You have been burning the 'midnight oil' in your quest for info.
for the debate at next weeks' planning meeting hence my reply
today.
I was asked by the Herald for a response to the previous weeks' article
regarding the Brislands Lane development just 24 hours before my trip.
TimB has acknowledged these were my personal observations and comments.
My communication to the paper was not in letter form and was sent from my
personal e-mail address, perhaps a busy Carnival week made it easy to publish
in letter format
The response to EHDC on Wednesday will be the Councillors not mine
- how exciting it would be if the decision was taken by FMPC!!
See attached communication to the Herald for those that don't
read it.
Regards
BT
--- On Fri, 31/5/13, Hammond, John <John > wrote:
From: Hammond, John < >
Subject: Planning Meeting - 5th June 2013
To: "Bryan Timms"
Cc: "Sarah Goudie" Date: Friday, 31 May, 2013, 0:56
Bryan,
I have read with interest your letter in the Alton Herald, and it has posed some questions for me. It is clear that we do have some different views within the Parish Council specifically on the issue of the Reserve Site Application, and I am wondering exactly what the protocol is when statements are made in the public arena which may not necessarily be representative of the views of the individual councillors. The reason I ask this is that I have now had a couple of residents who have asked me about the detail of the content of your letter and the standpoint of the Parish Council on this particular issue, but I will come on to this point separately.
Reading the letter from you as Chairman of the Parish Council implies that the views are those of the Parish Council, unless of course it states otherwise. I was interested to understand if perhapsour constitution provides forthe Chairman and Deputy Chairman for example to make statements on behalf of the Parish Council without consultation, or if ordinarily such statements are agreed by councillors, or are otherwise clearly shown to be only the view of the individual? This leads me on to the specific point raised by the said residents.
They said that the message they were taking from your letter, rightly or wrongly, was that we should not be fighting against the application.So are you suggesting that the Parish Council does not submit an objection, despite what we said as part of the Outline Application?
When I became a Parish Councillor I felt a strong sense of responsibilityto go the extra mile to not only represent the views, wishes, and best interests of the local community, but also to be seen to be doing so. There are clearly expectations that we should be doing that in the most effective way possible.
Your letter states that a meeting was arranged with the senior planning officer prior to preparing a response. We did raise a number of significant questions with Mr Whitty and requested a formal response to these, and as you know I did ask to see the communication that I was told had been sent toMr Whitty outlining this. I have still not seen it. I did ask that Mr Whitty should be told that we needed his full response to all the questions put to him at the meeting last week (not just those listed in the notes provided yesterday) by Monday at the latest. I have had no confirmation that that message has been relayed to Mr Whitty.I am very concerned that we will be frustrated in our attempts to provide any sort of informed response to the application.
I am aware of how we normally discuss planning applications, although this one is significantly more important to any others I have been involved in. It feels as though we should be doing more in the way of preparation. For my benefit, as well as I expect for other Councillors, can you please explain the process we will go throughfrom here going forward, that will enable us to prepare a full, complete, and agreed response to this application. That would be very helpful.
Thanks
Regards
John
**********************************************************************
Correspondents should note that all communications to or from the Planning Inspectorate may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
10 June 2013
Tim Good Day
This stage of the Brislands Lane Development is quite unique in my 40 years of planning on both sides of the fence I have not witnessed an application of ‘Reserved Matters Only’ regarding a large development at a time when there are major negotiations to implement housing numbers for the next planned period which makes it extremely difficult for most Councillors to understand the implications
Brislands was a Reserve Site identified by the Inspector and adopted in the Local Plan.
When the Outline Planning application was considered by the Planning Committee much debate took place as to whether it should be considered under the existing ‘Adopted Local Plan’ or the emerging NPPF and its Joint Core Strategy the Members decided that the NPPF was not a sufficient material consideration and accepted that the Adopted Local Plan was the correct policy and agreed the Outline Permission - this was before the Inspector rejected East Hampshire’s JCS.
A decision which we can now use to our advantage, because under the Adopted Local Plan a Development Brief was provided for the Brislands Lane Site.
You quite rightly pointed out that the applicants have ignored the D B and the Planning Officer has confirmed that the only elements approved are Outline Permission, Access and the now legally binding 106 agreements.
Quantum is not “cast in stone” so therefore the 20% increase in the number of dwellings means that the applicants cannot satisfy any elements of condition No.2 of the Outline Permission and offers us a Planning Constraint to defend the over development and force the Planning Officer to justify this increase contrary to their own Development Brief.
If we introduce failure to implement the NPPF and the non-existent JCS as an objection we undermine Councils’ first class case. The known requirements Social Housing, Starter Homes, Self Builds etc. but not yet ratified because of the JCS rejection will allow the PO to justify the quantum. It could also leave the site vulnerable should the developer decide to submit a further application for an increase because our LA has failed to submit its detailed J C S as happened with the Lymington Barn development.
I asked the Clerk to forward a copy of your response, if you accept the dangers of asking for the Reserve Matters to be considered under NPPF then I can see no other Planning objection that is not already included - in particular your reference to our Community Plan - any other issues are outside the remit of the PC. If I have missed any element which will have particular impact let me know. I am trying to work smarter not harder so apologies for the length of response, but I don’t want our best argument destroyed.
BT
Tim
Thanks for your considered response it's appreciated.
Yes we all object to this application.
Regards
BT
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:11, Tim Brake < > wrote:
Bryan,
I respect your comments and I think I stated my views robustly, at the end of the day we all object to this proposal as it stands. If the majority feel that the abridged version is best then so be it. Time is now pressing even more. I agree with John's points and feel that EHDC be aware of where we stand. But I must insist that all the points raised in the our planning meeting a properly minuted so there a record for future reference
Best regards
Tim
Sent from my iPad
<Tim Good Day 10th June 2013.docx>
Tim Good Day
Acknowledge receipt of your e-mails and the request there in - but am somewhat surprised
at the activity that you say has taken place!
The Clerk is on leave for two days so I will make a decision re. the request when I have
considered all the facts and it's implications on the Parish Council.
Regards
BT
Sent from my iPad
On 13 Jun 2013, at 09:16, Tim Brake < > wrote:
Bryan
I must apologise in my haste last night I forgot to send all the coorespondence. Please find attached now?
Regards
Tim
Bryan,
As you know, Sarah was for one reason or another, unable to make a full and complete submission to Mr Whitty that embraced all the points that Councillors wished to have included in our response to the Reserved Matters application, although a submission was made, the final version of which was not shared with or agreed byCouncillors and has still not been circulated to them.
When it was apparent that there was still an opportunity to make a full and complete submission within the timescale, I submitted on behalf of Councillors a more detailed version which had previously been circulated to Councillors and whichthe majority of Councillors supported and recognised as being more representative of their and residents views. Mr Whitty was asked to accept these as the official consultee comments of Four Marks Parish Council and for these tobe loaded to the website as soon as possible.
Mr Whitty has stated thathe is willing to substitute the attached response for those currently online if requested to do so by the Clerk of in her absence the Chairman.
I am therefore formally requesting that you make the attached submission to Mr Whitty without delay either through the Clerk or in her absence yourself,as the formal representation of Four Marks Parish Councilas their response to the Reserved Matters application for the Reserve Site. I can confirm that this request is supported by a majority consisting of 7 Parish Councillorsbeing Cllrs Brake, Bland, Foster, Hammond, Howsego, Kuhn, Turner.
Please confirm that this request has been actioned.
Regards
Tim
Councillors Good Day
See attachment.
Regards
BT
Councillors
Brislands Lane Application
1/ I have reviewed the procedure we agreed at the Planning Meeting – subsequent to the circulation of the initial draft. The late response to the questions posed at our meeting with the Planning Officer added unnecessary pressure to meet the 10 June 2013 deadline. However most Councillors had replied by lunch time on the 10th June with their comments and the relevant alterations and additions were made.
Cllr Brake expressed concern reference the NPPF to which I responded asking in my final paragraph if any element has been missed which will have a particular impact let me know. His response received 18.29 contained no additional elements. I thanked him for his considered response commenting it was appreciated.
At 19.28 I received the final draft and an accompanying message that Cllr Hammond had not replied to the questions raised either by e-mail or by telephone. The deadline was just over three hours away, I agreed the Councils’ response and signed it off for submission.