David Burden (Member SG)

Petworth Town Council Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Meeting
Petworth Town Council Offices
7pm, Tuesday 24th October2017

Present
Julie Aguilar (NP Clerk)

Douglas Cooper (Chair of SG)

Elizabeth Hodgkins (Member SG)
Ian McNeil (Member SG & representative of Housing Working Group)

Chris Kemp (PTC & Chair of Leisure & Well-being Working Group)

John Riddell (Member SG)

Dominick Veasey (Nexus Planning)

Apologies for absence

Pip Aitken (Co-opted member of SG & Chair of Housing Working Group)

Rob Evans (Chair of Getting Around Working Group)
Sarah Nelson (SDNPA)
Rosa Pawsey (Member SG)

Lee Scott (Member SG)

Approval of minutesfrom meeting held on 26th September2017

RE asked to be included in the list of apologies otherwise approved without further changes.

Actions from meeting held on 26th September 2017

LS to speak to the Leconfield Estates and impress upon them the urgency of setting up a meeting between all three landowners to discuss a land equalisation agreement and report back to the committee – IN PROGRESS
CK to attend the SDNPA planning committee meeting on 12th October – DONE (SEE ‘SDNPA PLANNING MEETING ON 12TH OCTOBER’ SECTION OF THESE MINUTES)
JA to make contact with new Clerk Melanie to approach CDC about publicity rules around Neighbourhood Plans in the run up to a referendum and report back – IN PROGRESS
SN to ascertain if any progress has been made in engaging with Hastoe and to provide a contact name, if possible – DONE (SEE ‘AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HASTOE’ SECTION OF THESE MINUTES)
CK has offered to contact Stephen Finlay on behalf of the Leconfield Estates about the grant application for employment development. Although PTC cannot apply for the grant itself, it could work jointly with Leconfield Estates, if necessary – IN PROGRESS
CK to send a PTC representative to the SDNPA parish workshop w/c 2nd October (CIL) – NO REPRESENTATIVE AVAILABLE.

SDNPA Planning Meeting on 12th October

CK and DB both attended this meeting at which the Petworth Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) was part of the agenda.

CK said that the overall response to the PNDP was very favourable. One concern from the SDNPA is that the Master Plan could be used as a weapon against the Plan by developers because it looks ‘too final’. According to CK, it was interesting to see how planning applications are reviewed and commented on although it did raise the question about whether the Master Plan should be withdrawn from the Plan completely.

DV pointed out that the Master Plan is a useful tool to demonstrate where housing should be and in particular, why the southerly access road to the school should remain where it is. However, he advises against omitting it until the examiner comes back with his responses.

IM stated that he believed the current terminology might be wrong (a Master Plan suggests a more advanced document whereas the one in the PNDP serves merely as a visual illustration of what the Plan means. DV and CK suggested that ‘illustrative concept plan’ or similar wording might be a better definition. DV said it might also be worthwhile considering having the current Master Plan drawing re-produced to demonstrate a ‘block or parameters concept plan’.

After further discussion around the table, it was agreed to re-draw the Housing Policies Map on page 30 of the Draft Plan, zooming into the specific site areas and then incorporating the key information from the Master Plan drawing into this map. That way, the Master Plan is retained but critical information is incorporated into a document (the Housing Policies Map on page 30) that has been created by the Steering Group rather than by a third party (Savills Master Planners).

DB said that SDNPA openly declared their support for the group at the meeting and DC added that it was enormously helpful to have SN on the Steering Group committee.

ACTIONS

DV to start preparatory work on theamalgamation of data from the Master Plan drawing into the Housing Policies map.

Update on pre-submission consultation and responses

All consultation responses have now been received by SDNPA and forwarded to John Slater (independent examiner).

Prior to this evening’s Steering Group meeting, DC, DV and CK met to go through the responses. DV’s verdict is that there are no surprising comments and he is confident that we can respond easily to the representation made by Vail Williams on behalf of the Jupp Family. It remains to wait until the examiner comes back with his comments.

DC asked if the examiner is likely to ask for a hearing. In DV’s opinion, the Vail Williams response might provoke a hearing simply because it is a legal representation although the general guidance on hearings is that they should be avoided wherever possible. Ifthere is a hearing, the examiner will decide whom to invite (it is not a public session).

John Slater and independent examination – the process and timeline

By email, ahead of this evening’s Steering Group meeting, SN confirmed that John Slater has all the representations and documents and has started his examination. She expects to receive a series of questions from him over the next few weeks and will keep the group informed accordingly.

DV believes the examination should be quite quick based on the small number of responses and Mr Slater’s extensive experience. He also thinks the areas that might warrant further clarification or questions from the examiner are the Master Plan, the southerly access road and the Vail Williams representation.

Getting ready for the referendum (including publicity)

Ahead of this evening’s meeting, SN advised that she has informally told Chichester District Council about the current progress of the Plan and she will confirm dates for a referendum when she hears back from Mr Slater.

Once JA has approached CDC and found out the rules for publicity in the lead up to the referendum, she will put together a promotional campaign.

Following discussion among the group, it was decided to take an educative approach to publicity leading up to the referendum focusing on why Neighbourhood Planning matters and giving examples of what happens to towns that don’t have one (eg, Midhurst and the current reactive development taking place there). As JR stated, by encouraging Petworth to vote for their plan, residents will be protecting the future of their own town.

ACTIONS:

JA to follow up with Melanie Kite and CDC to obtain publicity guidelines and then put together a campaign plan.

Affordable housing and Hastoe

DC has spoken to Hastoe who welcomes the opportunity to meet up with the group at the appropriate time (when there is a land equalisation agreement in place). He encouraged the team to look at the three Hastoe brochures. Because of their large file size, JA recommends accessing them electronically via the Hastoe website at to the red section ‘related files’ on the right).

IM recommended involving CDC in a meeting with Hastoe about affordable housing. DC agreed but only when the time is right, for example, when we know exactly how the sites are going to be developed.

AOB- None.

Next meeting

The next meeting will take place at 7pm on Tuesday, 21stNovemberat Petworth Town Council Offices. Please be aware that this meeting might be brought forward or cancelled depending on the examiner’s progress.

The meeting closed at 8pm.