5 thoughts on “Minutes Of Steering Committee (SC) Meeting No. 10

  1. Looking at the key findings of the survey , i think you need to build into your standard statements that 90% of respondents would like the developments to be within the building boundary as well
    Our questions are
    Q1.Why has this key point been dropped?

    Q2.As one of the two surveys was devoted to establishing the need for affordable housing from within the Parish , When can we expect to see some assessment of the justified need for affordable
    I understand that it could be low at around 10% , which begs the question why skew the scoring to promote larger plus 5 sites as that will generate 20% ,twice what is required

    Q3.There are rumours that sites of 4 and under will not be considered by the PI ,as he /she will consider them as windfall
    Can you please advise on this as the definition in appendix 2 of the NPPPF defines Windfall as as sites that have not been specially identified as available in the LOCAL PLAN process , so surely this cannot be legally correct and should be challenged

    Q4.When will we see something on targets , HDC are currently saying 1500 homes have to be found by the rural parishes and as we represent about 5 % on a population head basis(1961 figures !) , it would a seem they would like around 5 per year over 15 years , which of course has been the Parish build rate over the last 30 years , but NOT over the last 15 years as that has been much lower as the supply of infill land started to dry up
    Perhaps some more work in this areas looking at recent population head counts would be useful to provide a better steer on the possible shortfall that we may have
    The key findings of the survey in this area , suggest the vast majority of residents want nearer 55 , rather than ’75 or less’ which you often quote
    Q5. Your short list of suitable of suitable sites gives ( assuming 5 can be built at site site 22 and ignoring the contribution from sites 1 and 9 ,) , if my maths is right , a total to date of 62 , a possible shortfall of 9 from the likly HDC figure and 11 above what the parish is asking for
    This seems ok to us , but if a small amount of headroom is required, perhaps the time is now right to …
    A,Talk the landowners of the small sites suggested by residents,even those who rejected the initial approach to see if a site or two could be found
    B. Revaluate sites like 4 and 15
    C, Contact Saxon Homes/HDC to see what is their strategy for rebuild/expansion within the next 15 years of their Oak way site in the heart of Mannings Heath, some additions may arise there .

    • On behalf of Owen Hydes, Steering Committee chairman:

      Question 1:

      Mannings Heath is the only settlement in the Parish with an official built up area boundary. The other five settlements have no such delineations and it is open to interpretation where the built up part of the settlement begins and ends. “Planning” is not a neat and precise science.

      We had sites put forward for development either by landowners or by residents that subsequently “fell”. For example the owner of a site in Copsale put forward by residents did not want it developing; and a site in Mannings Heath put forward by the owner was subsequently withdrawn.
      At the moment, we have no sites in Mannings Heath put forward by landowners or residents that are within the built up area boundary.

      Question 2:
      At the moment, we simply do not know how many “affordable homes” we will need to provide and we require more guidance from Horsham District Council on this. Please note that the largest potential sites in Mannings Heath at Woolmers, Masons Field and Saddlers Farm have not been included in the potential short list even though they would have yielded the largest number of affordable homes.
      Question 3:
      The definition of what is a “windfall site” is variable and not clear and needs to be discussed further with our consultant and Horsham District Council.
      Question 4/5:
      Horsham District Council has not given Parish Councils doing a Neighbourhood Plan a figure for new housing over the next 15 years. So we do not currently have a target number for new housing. As explained on our website, we need a figure that will be acceptable to Horsham District Council and the Independent Examiner and need more guidance on this.
      Question 6:
      The Chair of the Steering Committee has had two discussions and a site meeting with Saxon Weald. Saxon Weald does not wish to redevelop Oak Way in Mannings Heath or expand its provision in the vicinity of Oak Way dues to problems presented by the terrain and access to the sewage works.

      When we have received further guidance to clarify issues such as “affordable homes” and “windfall sites”, we will of course make that advice public. Clearly there is still a lot more work to be done but the Steering Committee is committed to producing the very best Neighbourhood Plan that it can.

      • Thanks for the prompt reply
        Our comments on your reply are
        Q1
        The fact that the building boundary in the Hamlets is more difficult to determine as there is no BUAB, was not , with respect, the point of our question
        What we were suggesting was to promote more openly the wish of the residents that they want to see small developments within the building boundary of their settlements
        We would suggest that you could use the resources at your disposal like the H and D focus group to research and provide guidance on a definition of within the building boundary as one was proposed some months ago by them in anticipation of this issue
        Q2
        Sorry we find your answer confusing
        Surely the amount of work put in by AIRS to produce the housing needs survey , showed there is is a justified need from the Parish for only around around 10 %
        As HDC have ensured there will be an adequate supply of affordable homes by demanding that all sites over 5 will have at least 20 % affordable homes , should this plan prepared by the residents for the residents not concern itself more with representing the views of the residents Is it not more important to ensure the current review by HDC of the Nuthurst SHLAA aligns with the site short list ,as such sites will have one affordable e home for every 4 open market built , twice the need identified by the parish!
        Q3
        AS the NPPF provides a clear definition of windfall , we are puzzled by your answer
        Are you able to elaborate on the problem please ?

        Q4
        We appreciate that HDC plan has not been approved by the PI , but HDC have provided guidance, mentioned in our initial question, on the likely numbers that the Rural Parishes , like us will have to find
        Against what target is the short list of sites being drawn up and what will be the mechanism for addressing any shortfall that may arise when HDC target confirm their target

        Q5
        Could you please reply to sections A and B of this question , which basically asked ‘ In order to ensure no contribution from resident suggested small sites, are missed what plans are in hand to revisit and re-evaluate the small sites ,( apart of course sites 1 and 9 which is in hand ).
        Thanks

      • On behalf of Owen Hydes, Steering Committee chairman:

        Q1. Our Planning consultant has advised that it would be unwise to attempt to define hamlet boundaries. There are two reasons:

        1. Residents in the hamlets have not been asked if they wish to have boundaries; and
        2. There is a sensitive and difficult matter of deciding where any boundaries should go since the hamlets have scattered houses, sometimes separated by fields.

        We have taken into consideration that in the survey, residents said that they wanted small developments within the settlements.

        Q2: “Affordable homes” is on our list of things to discuss with Horsham District Council when they agree to do so.

        Q3. Our website contains the advice we have received from our planning consultants on the definition of “windfall sites”.

        Q4. We can only repeat that Horsham District Council has NOT given individual Parishes a target number of houses.

        Q5. We have considered all small sites suggested by residents where the landowner gave us permission to do so.

        If any short-listed sites are withdrawn from the Neighbourhood Plan and/or we find that we do not have enough houses, we will carry out a review of all proposed sites. At the moment this situation has not arisen.

      • My understanding from the HDC recently, was that since March of this year windfall sites were to be included in the numbers required. So all sites should be considered even if below the artificial ceiling of 5. There is no reason why some could be made ‘ affordable’ even if the sites were below the magical 5.

        Question on the Criteria relating to ‘B’ seems to cover 2 elements, example is for Saddlers Farm the proposed layout is definitely not in keeping with existing properties in the area, so should have a minus mark. The other element of the Criteria in the same box would be a plus mark as it does not join up with any adjacent settlement.
        On this basis it is obvious that there should be separate boxes for each Criteria

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s