Latest Documents and News on Progress


Following on from my 2 updates yesterday (2nd May), the letter from Chris Lyons (HDC) and feedback from the PC & NP Team, the next steps were discussed at the UBPC  on the 2nd. May and agreed the following from the points raised below:

As well as my notes David Caldwell had had a meeting with Norman Kwan at HDC and felt that if we were to get the support of HDC we would have to do a new HNS.
Lots of discussion about using the existing HNS and the fact that whatever the new number of houses required might be, UB simply did not have the space to develop any more than our current NP was proposing unless we were able to use sites within SDNP.

Everybody agreed the last statement but it was clear that unless we properly identified what the Housing Needs figure was for all types of housing (current one mainly focused on Affordable) we would be liable to lose any future close scrutiny of our figures by any Developers, Planning Authorities, Courts etc.
If we do nothing and stop the NP we leave ourselves open to HDC dictating sites and possible Developers suggesting sites already classified as not suitable but not registered in an NP trying to develop again.

It was therefore agreed that we would:
1. Pursue with HDC if they would support us using the existing HNS with additional housing numbers added.
2. AiRS would identify the additional requirements of the AECOM HNS to their original one.
3. If 1 was not supported even with the additional requirements of 2 we would carry out the AECOM HNS.
4. We would seek additional support from AiRS and seek a further grant and support from Locality.
5. Based on the outcome of the decisions above we would produce a new project plan
6. I would remain as Chair of the NP with a contract from the PC to be agreed.

I hope this clarifies where we are and when we get points 1 & 2 clarified we will be in a position to move on.

Since writing the above we have had further clarification from HDC and sight of the independent report Henfield had carried out on their failed NP. It is clear from both that we will have to carry out a new HNS as shown in bold above. I have asked AiRS to produce a new plan and costings and started the ball rolling with applying for a new grant and support from Locality. (12/5/17)

Sean Teatum

A quick add in to my initial report issued this morning.

These are from our NP Consultant and I have shown them in red italics.The recommendation from them is to go for Option 2.

2. Start a new HNS as per HDC’s recommendation and possible new Call for Sites. Faustina (AiRS) & Allison’s (NP Consultant) recommendation.
This month’s focus has been around our meeting with the HDC Team and their recommendation that we need to carry out a new HNS or possibly carry on with our current NP but without allocating Development Sites just Green Spaces. Following on from the meeting I wrote to HDC for some clarification only to find that they had changed direction and it would now be unlikely that HDC would support an NP that was for Green Spaces only and did not include any development site allocations.
Having got feedback from Allison (our NP Consultant) & Faustina (AiRS) I wrote back to HDC for their comment on the following points. Their summarised response is in italics below:

Produce an NP with no new HNS and just include Green Spaces. Would HDC support or not and would it get through the Inspector.There is a risk that an NP that does not provide sites for housing would not pass an examination, where it can be demonstrated that suitable sites are available. If this is the case the plan would not conform with the HDPF or meet the Basic Conditions.
Produce an NP with new HNS and development site allocation. You said this would identify a higher number of houses and as we already have great problems finding sites outside of SDNP to meet our initial HNS requirements would this also require a new Call for Sites. As we are unlikely to meet this demand, how is this dealt with by HDC / the Inspector. HDC’s recommendation is that the PC continues to develop its NP with site allocations . HDC’s own policies require 1500 homes to be delivered through NPs. In order for Parishes to be considered to be in conformity with this approach we would expect that parishes make specific allocations unless there are very specific circumstances as to why this would not be appropriate. Settlements with Built Up Area Boundaries (BUABs) such as Upper Beeding are identified as the key locations for further expansion.
Do nothing at all, put the NP on hold for a few years until HDC carry out their new Housing review, allocate a quota to each Parish and then we will clearly know what is required of us. (don’t think this would have any impact on CIL as no new large developments planned in UB over next few years. COULD THERE BE ANY OTHER IMPACTS THAT YOU CAN MAKE US AWARE OF IF WE WENT DOWN THIS LINE).There is a significant risk that this would not lead to a successful Neighbourhood Plan and its policies would not form part of the Development Plan. In these circumstances HDC would need to allocate sites as part of a review of the Local Plan (HDPF) with the local community no longer taking the lead in shaping the future of development and planning matters in their parish.
Ask Henfield if we could be part of their NP and let them help with doing item 2 as they are about to start theirs again. (unlikely not to be a goer as extra demand on Henfield but worth asking the question). Joint working with Henfield would require both parties to revoke their current area designation status and reapply as a joint cluster. This will lengthen the plan preparation process and be dependent on Henfield’s willingness to develop a plan in conjunction with Upper Beeding.

This was presented to the APM on 27th April. The residents were overwhelmingly upset by HDC’s position on NPs in progress and their insistence that PCs had to undertake new HNSs or risk their NPs not being supported. These ranged from just do it anyway and see what happens to getting Nick Herbert involved.
Following on from the APM I wrote to Allison and Faustina for some more advice on the following questions:
Should we get an independent planning firm to look at the issue we feel bringing in another planning consultant would add to costs and delays as in reality that time would be better spent instructing AECOM. We have also asked Claire Tester – former Head of Planning at Mid Sussex and now a sub consultant to AirS to check all the correspondence from HDC and she has inputted to my replies to you.
Is there any other NPs that have got through not using the new HNS (AECOM) or just Green Spaces only. There are two issues to consider. The first is that what has happened recently in terms of NPs and judicial reviews and other matters – local authorities are becoming more stringent in their reviews and advice on draft NPs. Whilst I’m not here to defend HDC, in all honesty I feel they are making recommendations to you on the basis that they want you to succeed. Secondly – with many other NPs – they have a housing figure that they are working towards – this baseline work has already been undertaken for them by the local planning authority. You would need to find an example of a very recent NP that didn’t have a housing figure provided for them that have gone through the examination system without having a detailed HNS.
What are the main add ons in the AECOM HNS apart from identifying Market Housing Needs. Faustina and Simon (the researcher within the AirS) are fine with having a look at the gaps between your HNS and the specification/methodology set out in the AECOM report. That will give you an idea of the extra work required to meet HDC’s recommendation.
Should we call HDC’s bluff. We would recommend that you do go for option 2 as set out in your email as this would give you the most robust base from which to continue the NP from. However – we would know more when we see what Simon has identified in terms of gaps between the two HNS.
Would it be worth expanding the current HNS (not that old) and adding in Market Housing to make up the gap. Our Housing and Development Doc. does show an overall Housing need (151 homes) based on HDC’s formula. (reference to this is at the base of this report). We would recommend that you do go for option 2

Perhaps if the current HNS was re-visited and shown that sites currently within the BUAB couldn’t meet the 151 figure, hence we would have to look at sites adjacent to the BUAB. Also the site that everybody believes is the best site but in SDNP (Beeding Court Farm) would allow us to meet the 151 figure. If we showed SDNP that we had exhausted all possible sites that we would get residents to agree on would they reconsider.
Rather than spend more time carrying out a new HNS and call for sites perhaps we could re-evaluate what we already have and see if it would satisfy HDC’s demands.

I spoke to Allison on Friday (28th. April) who discussed our situation with Tom Warder of AiRS, she suggested the following on the phone and has since responded with an email which I have updated my earlier report in red italics:
AiRS would get one of their people to review the AECOM HNS (new) to see what differences there are from the AiRS (old) one
AiRS would consider providing more support to the NP Team to progress the new HNS if this was decided as the way to go by the PC.
If we wanted to go ahead with the existing HNS they would support but there maybe a further delay if HDC reject and then we have to carry out the new HNS
Allison said she would go back to AiRS late Friday and reply to me, (not yet received but will update you ASAP)

Based on the current info we have 3 options:

1. Go ahead with the current HNS, adjust to show some additional Market Housing (total 151) and hope HDC support.
2. Start a new HNS as per HDC’s recommendation and possible new Call for Sites. Faustina (AiRS) & Allison’s (NP Consultant) recommendation.
3. Give up now until HDC carry out a new Housing Plan and then consider starting a new NP.

The PC will need to consider which option to take at the 2nd. May Council Meeting


UBNP Team Chair


From Page 17 of the Housing & Development Paper
10. Considerations
Any increase in housing numbers should be linked to the availability of additional local jobs. If a new development takes place, self-build should be encouraged. This provides a summary of the housing situation in the Parish. .
· Parish theoretical housing need (2031)
· Units already completed (Apr 2011 – Mar 2013)
· Units in the planning system pipeline as at March 2013
· Net further housing requirements
· Estimated housing capacity of identified suitable sites housing deficit 3 units

The theoretical need in 2031 is calculated by applying the 0.6% annual growth rate forecast in the HDC Plan to the current population and then dividing by the 2011 (census) occupancy rate as follows:
· Population estimated in 2031: 4215 people
· Population increase 2011-2031: 451 people
· 2011 occupancy rate: 2.6 people per dwelling
· Additional households 2011-2031: 151

Extract from HNS page 9/10 of the Housing and development Doc
Survey indicates a clear ‘YES’ to Affordable homes but ‘NO’ to Open Market homes although there is a demand identified for smaller units on the open market for older people to downsize to; these could form part of a mixed development and could help subsidise the affordable units potentially (a model often used by CLTs)There is a good level of support for affordable housing to meet local needs and limited support for market housing. The respective need / demand for housing reflects this with a substantial need for affordable housing identified and a modest demand for market housing. We need to identify sites to meet both the reasonable need for genuinely affordable housing and the modest need for downsizing housing.Some form of mixed development might be the best way to achieve this. Looking at sites outside of the development boundary (rural exception sites) we need a scheme designed to meet up to half the need identified in order to ensure that there are sufficient people with a local connection available to occupy the homes when they become available. Particularly as about half the need identified is amongst those living with parents, some of whom are young people (18 – 25) whose plans are likely to change in the years to come. We need to meet the needs of the community over the next 20 years so development should be phased accordingly and local needs are more likely to grow than diminish given the acute affordability problems that exist.It’s very clear that the villages do not want or need any major developments (such as Rydon Homes). What we do need is approximately 30 Affordable Homes, 30 Open Market Homes and some Sheltered Housing for our ageing population over the next 20 years. To be provided in small developments of 8, 12 or 20 houses as well as allowing the current one or two builds replacing existing on suitable plots.The Survey indicates that based on incomes we need to consider ‘social housing’ as there are very few houses with middle incomes which could afford “affordable rent” or some intermediate market housing product like shared ownership. A Community Land Trust (CLT) model may be worth exploring as this could seek to provide more genuinely affordable housing. It is also clear that some of the housing identified, needs to be rented rather than owned.



ATTENDEES: Alan Chilver, John Rowland, Miles Cary, Sally Norvell, Mike Newhall, Joyce Shaw, Geoff & Carol Parker, Sean Teatum
APOLOGIES: Juliet Hindson, Andrew Purches, Katherine Bowlan, Jennifer Woods
  • Thanks to those attending last night. We had a good session discussing whether we should recommend a new HNS or not based on the requirement by HDC as described in the email sent for Discussion at base of this page.
  • From the discussion the Team took the unanimous decision to go ahead with the NP but without having a new HNS, this will be the recommendation made to the PC to consider unless we identify some other black hole that we have missed / not been aware of from further info from HDC / our Consultants.
  • To help this I agreed to produce a simple PROS & CONS list as shown below and send out for further comment.
  • This is shown below and I will update when I receive any responses.
  • The final list will be sent to the NP Team to agree and then be presented at the APM on 27th. April and will be formally put to the PC on 2nd May for their decision.
Sean Teatum

—– Forwarded Message —–
To: Norman Kwan <>; Allison Keech <>; Faustina Bayo <>; Michael Eastham <>; neighbourhood.planning <>
Cc: Tom Warder <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017, 11:05


Hi All,
We had our NP Team Meeting last night and obviously discussed our meeting with HDC and the key point about whether to carry out a new HNS, which was stated as being a requirement if we were to go forward to allocate sites. If we didn’t we could just go for an NP with Green Spaces only and be in the hands of HDC for the next 4 years until they produce a new Housing Supply. 
I produced the email below to send out to the Team to aid discussion (UNFORTUNATELY I GOT NO RESPONSE FROM HDC TO SOME OF MY QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE HELPED CAN YOU PLEASE RESPOND) but thanks to Allison and Faustina for your input.
Based on the info so far the Team took the unanimous decision to go ahead with the NP but without having a new HNS this will be the recommendation made to the PC to consider unless we identify some other black hole that we have missed / not been aware of. 
To help this I have tried to produce a simple PROS & CONS list as I see it about not having a new HNS and just going with Green Spaces. Could you all have a look and see if this is reasonably correct / answer any questions / add any others. I want to try and keep this simple so the PC can decide and not get bogged down with jargon and what ifs. 
In addition Dave Caldwell identified a possible issue with Findon going this way and SDNP adding sites after. Is this just a one off. Could you make us aware of any other Parishes that have gone down this route so that we can see how it has worked.
We have our APM at the end of April which I will be presenting to so would like some response by 24th April please. The next PC will be the 2nd May
  • Save time in producing draft plan
  • Save money
  • At least have Green Spaces recorded
  • Could be easier to be accepted in referendum
  • Safe from developments for next 4 years (until HDC produce new Housing Supply)
  • Only allows sites within the current village built up area to be developed (we currently don’t have any)
  • New HNS will require at least another 3 – 4 months work + additional cost
  • Likely identify more homes required for UB
  • Will not allow any affordable homes to be built
  • Only stops development for next 4 years (can village built up area be extended / new sites identified)?
  • Will it allow developers more access to sites
Sean Teatum

—– Forwarded Message —–
To: “” <>; “” <>; Steve Coberman <>; Andrew Purches <>; “” <>; John Rowland <>; Alan Chilver <>; “” <>; “” <>; “” <>; Katherine Bowlan <>; “” <>; Carol Parker <>; “” <>; Faustina Bayo <>
Cc: Allison Keech <>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 11:05
Subject: Discussion for Tonight’s NP Meeting


Hi All,
I have been trying to get some more info re point 6 that I sent out for discussion tonight.
6.  However – the option of not allocating sites was also discussed.  HDC currently has a 5 year housing supply and so all applications that don’t accord with the Horsham Framework would get refused.  How long this would remain the case is unknown.  UBNP could then focus on local green space and other matters. I have tried to get more clarity on this and AiRS have said:
Whether you allocate sites for housing or not, as long as you have a Neighbourhood Plan in place, you will be entitled to 25% of CIL on Market Housing of any development that takes place after your plan is made (adopted). However, not allocating sites does mean you allow HDC to allocate where they want and you have little control over where the development takes place. With regards to affordable housing, the development will have to be at least 10 or more on site for them to deliver affordable housing on site. Meaning, any development less than 10 (if not a rural exception site) will not be under any obligation to provide affordable homes.
I have asked AiRS to explain further the following: ” Are you saying that if HDC have allocated a site in UB (SHEELA etc.) in their  5 year housing supply then that allows them to develop even if we haven’t supported that site in the NP regardless of whether we allocate sites or not in our NP.
Also asked HDC to clarify
I have had the following statements from Allison and Faustina below:
A site in a Shelaa is not allocated. A site can only be allocated within a local plan that is adopted or a neighbourhood plan . A shelaa is just a mechanism to bring together a list of sites that are then assessed. If a site is within the built up area boundary and complies with the NPPF then it should be approved unless there are other material reasons why it shouldn’t.  Where a LA doesn’t have a 5 year housing supply then it may lose ‘hostile’ applications at appeal. Thus is where developers submit apps for sites that are not allocated but because there is no 5 year housing supply then the housing policies within the LP are deemed out of date. Planning works on all decisions are based on an adopted local plan (and saved policies within an older LP) and sustainable dev as set out in the NPPF.
If s site is in the SHELAA as a developable site, the landowner or developer will still have to submit a planning application. Which will have to meet certain criteria by HDC standard, the NPPF and also an NDP (if there is one in place). A site allocated as deliverable in the SHELAA I believe will be counting towards HDC numbers and as such the NDP cannot really object to that unless it can find an alternative suitable site to deliver those numbers. That still will not really rule out a deliverable site if it has been seen as sustainable. The NDP will have to conform to the Local Plan and the NPPF so if those numbers have to be delivered to meet HDC target, the NDP trying to stop it is not really conforming.
David Coldwell:
I am not sure where you are in site allocation, but I can tell you that Findon NP could not agree on site allocations so made none at all, which was accepted by SDNPA; but the emerging SDNPA plan is likely to allocate a pair of sites which has upset Findon PC somewhat. This is not to say that the sites will be developed.
Is it possible that the sites you have agreed already stay as they are and that this ends the allocation process. Does the HNS number have to be met by the NP – I think not because there could be many cases where HNS numbers cannot be met by the available land allocated or not.
I further asked: I need to know how safe are we on developments happening where we don’t want if we don’t go ahead with new HNS and allocate sites.
I guess it will be identifying those areas you believe could be a target and see if they can be designated as local green spaces, some landowners would object but it doesn’t mean they cannot be designated as a local green spaces.
That said, it will have to meet the green spaces criteria and be justified. The reasons why you do not want those sites to be developed should be sound and not sustainable rather than just preventing development there because you do not want development there.
I have not yet had a response from HDC
Be interested in your understanding as not that clear to me!!
I have added an extract from Henfield PC regarding whether they are going to produce a second NP.
The Chairman informed the meeting that the issue of a second NP for Henfield had been looked at very carefully over the preceding six months. It had been important to gain the views of residents at the Annual Parish Meeting and to commission the report from IPe Ltd. In addition, a meeting had been held with planning officers at HDC on 29th March. The Chairman felt that Henfield should be treated as a special case and should be entitled to financial support from HDC. Mrs Barbara Childs confirmed that there is no longer any funding being provided by Central Government and there is therefore no money available. She did agree to speak to Dr Chris Lyons to check whether it might be possible to secure additional funding elsewhere. The Chairman indicated that there might be access to a £9K grant from Locality. It is a lengthy process to apply online and it is a requirement to identify what the funding will be spent on. Funding will need to have been used by 31st December 2017 to qualify for the grant, although this deadline might be extended until 31st March 2018. There may also be a further £6K available from Locality, which could potentially be used to produce a housing needs assessment. HDC has now produced templates for site assessments which all parishes can use and will also provide advice on this. HDC will also assist in drafting a call-for-sites letter and has maintained its commitment to produce a SA/SEA, with input from the Steering Group. The Chairman pointed out that there were six Focus Groups previously and their final reports had been criticised by IPe Ltd for being too brief, even though it had been acknowledged that a great deal of evidence had been assessed by each group. A number of developers have also been in contact with HPC about a second NP. These will be dealt with through the call-for-sites process, should a second NP be agreed. Mrs Donoghue asked how much a second NP might cost in broad terms. The Chairman stated that it may be in the region of £27K spent last time, or might even be slightly less. HDC has reiterated that it will be able to provide officer time to help produce the plan. Mr Kendall expressed his concerns over the cost of a second NP, whether volunteers would come forward with the required experience to assist with the plan, and the additional strain that the workload will place on the Parish Office. He felt that there will definitely be a need for increased administrative support. The Chairman agreed that this is important and some of the budget will be required to provide administrative assistance. Mr Sharp asked whether WSCC Highways is likely to change its view that there is sufficient capacity along Church Street. The Chairman confirmed that it is unlikely. This will need to be looked at very carefully in a second NP. Mr Yeo suggested that not having a plan would leave Henfield vulnerable to developers and it would be remiss of HPC not to produce a second NP. A lot had been learnt from the first NP and a valuable lesson is that experts don’t always agree. He also volunteered to assist. Mr Agarwal expressed his concern that Examiners might overrule a second NP. He also felt that the cost of second NP could double with the additional administrative support and may be in the region of £50K. The plan will need to be as robust as possible and professional help will be required to achieve this. The Chairman replied that if an Examiner rejects part of the plan, then it can be amended without losing the whole plan. Mr Eastwood stated that the risk of not producing a second NP far exceed the risks of not producing a plan. Whilst there may not be the support from HDC that is currently being promised, 4 the risks can be mitigated at various key checkpoints throughout the process by asking IPe Ltd to review the plan. Housing numbers are almost certain to increase over the coming years and it will be important to think very carefully about the additional infrastructure and the transport strategy that will be required to deal with the increased numbers. The plan will need to be as robust as possible. Mr Duggan felt that HPC had been very unlucky to have the first NP quashed. Only one developer had pursued a Judicial Review. HPC should now take charge of its own destiny and not rely on HDC for extra assistance. Henfield will be very vulnerable if it has no plan in the future and will need to plan for additional infrastructure. He also volunteered to assist. Mr Stevens reminded members that the experience at Lindfield and Newick show that any NP can be overridden in the future. There will be additional administrative work for the Parish Office, but there is no doubt that Henfield will be far better off with a plan than without one. The cost of the plan is likely to be largely upfront, so it should be possible to take advantage of the funding from Locality. Mr Pettifer asked if there are any time restraints on producing the plan and the Chairman confirmed that the only time restraint would be in applying for funding from Locality. Mr Colgate felt that the first plan was only quashed because planning permission was refused for the Sandgate Nursery site. Mr Rickard asked if the Horsham District Planning Framework would be sufficient to protect Henfield from speculative development and the Chairman confirmed that he felt it would not. After due discussion, the Chairman asked for a proposer. Mr Yeo proposed that Henfield Parish Council should agree to produce a second neighbourhood plan. This was seconded by Mrs Goodyear and approved by a vote of eleven in favour and two against. 


Hi All,
Update on the UBNP since last month.
1. Feedback from HDC on NP Documents submitted for review.
Norman Kwan of HDC NP sent his initial feedback to our Draft NP and SA. It seemed Norman focused on the Housing element of the Plan re: Housing Needs Survey, Site Surveys, Lack of Market Housing and criteria used to decide on sites. The NP Team felt he had misread / not fully understood what had been produced.
He also commented on the Policies which in the main were supported. He said the rest of the Documents had been given to his colleagues to comment on. It was agreed that we should have a F2F meeting with Norman and get feedback from our Consultant and the rest of the HDC Team on the other parts of the report.
I responded to HDC requesting a F2F meeting and suggesting that they may need more clarity in what we have produced.  As regards producing another HNS I suggested that if HDC wanted to pay for one fine but couldn’t see what was wrong with the one produced.
In addition our Consultant Allison wrote to the HDC Head of Planning Chris Lyons with the following:
Having waited almost 2 months for some feedback – we are disappointed about what has been sent through – not only is it unclear and difficult to read because it has been lumped together at the bottom of an email but we don’t know what part is a comment and who has made these and what it is referring to. Some of it is in red, some not. Norman states in his covering email that he has passed the SA onto colleagues but then appears to have sent through some comments on the SA.  Is there more to come? It is all quite jumbled with no indication if this is an initial set of comments or much more to come. Our key area of concern are the comments relating to housing need and the evidence for such. As you may be aware, UB has been working on a NP for a number of years now and had several meetings with HDC officers regarding housing need and sites.  At no point was it raised that the housing needs paper is not robust.  We understand that matters regarding neighbourhood plans have moved on in terms of robustness but we do not feel the comments assist the Parish Council with what they have to do now and how the District Council can help.  It would be good to understand what discussion you have had on this internally (as mentioned in your comments) and how you plan to assist the PC in bringing forward the type of housing needs survey you are looking for.  It sounds, from your comments, that you are expecting a parish based HNS to be able to do the job of a Strategic Housing Market Needs Assessment (SHMA). These complex, lengthy and expensive undertakings are not of great use to villages as they do not drill down to assess housing needs at a parish level.  We also wonder whether you have read and understood all of UB’s background documents because the HNS did indeed include questions on market needs/ demands and provided summary analysis on this also.  Also – requesting that a parish council provides long term projections based on a sub-regional housing market, work patterns, demographic trends etc is not appropriate due to expertise and resources and is unrealistic. Norman has kindly offered to hold a meeting to go through the comments but we would need this to happen as soon as possible and for all officers involved in commenting on the documents to be present. We would also ask that HDC provides a clear set of responses to the documents so we know who has commented on what.  We also need to know if the District Council is going to assist the PC and by when so that we can move this on as soon as possible. 
A meeting has been arranged for 7th. April at HDC to discuss so we will see what comes of it.
2. Green Spaces
I have now had responses back from  Mackley’s Field and Tottington Woods owners to say they do not want these designated as Green Spaces so I guess that unless we want to continue with these, knowing that the owners will object I suggest we leave them alone and not show as Green Spaces. The owner of Mackleys Field has already donated its use to the PC to use as a football pitch / playground and think if we went ahead against their wishes it may only upset them. Tottington Wood is already designated an Ancient Woodland and from some of the comments received from the owners think its best to leave as is.
I am still waiting a response for Wildbrooks having chased the owner a couple of times (Owner of Church Farm site) Katherine now feels it doesn’t fit the Green Space criteria as is an extensive tract of land so perhaps shouldn’t be considered as well. Are the PC happy with this approach.The other Green Sites will go forward.
3. The Future
I will present where we are with the NP to the APM on the 27th. April and inform them that I will be standing down from the NP Team at the end of April but will make myself available to share any knowledge on the Plan to whoever might take over. Having let the NP Team know and the PC Chair and Clerk it was felt that me standing down and HDC’s change of course dictated that we may need a larger provision of funding. We will need to put forward to the PC a revised estimate based on what the professionals tell us it will take for them to do more and see this through to a successful conclusion if a successor cant be found. It was felt that if the PC was unable to underwrite the additional cost, then the NP Team would have to seriously consider their future as a committee. Thus there will be some changes and decisions required by the PC. I will prepare a statement following our meeting with HDC on 7th. April and feedback from our Consultant and AiRS. Currently nobody from the NP Team seems to want to take on my role but Miles Carey has shown some interest (in possibly managing the activities if completed elsewhere / by professionals) and will accompany me to the meeting on 7th. I will outline the following:
1. What still needs to be done
2. Timescales to complete
3. What are the outstanding costs
4. What will be the additional costs if we can’t get anyone to take over my role and have to use Consultants
Sean Teatum
NP Chair

Notes from NP Team Meeting 15th March 2017.

DONM 5th April 2017

Attendees: John Rowland, Alan Chilver, Miles Carey, Joyce Shaw, Katherine Bowlan, Sally Norvell-Baker, Sean Teatum (Chair), Jennifer Wood, Juliet Hindson, Carol and Geoff Parker, Andrew Purches, Miles Carey, Jennifer Wood
Apologies: Mike Bray, Paul Hojka
1. Update
The Chair welcomed all and asked whether anyone had any additional items to add to the agenda. There were none. The update since the last meeting was around CAs, HDC feedback and Green Spaces which were all covered as items under the agenda.
2. Green Spaces
Katherine said that she had updated the Green Spaces Document as best she could but felt there were still holes in the document and wondered what feedback HDC had given on it. (NONE TO DATE). She felt that Tottington Wood was no longer eligible to be included due to its Ancient Woodland status. The Chair also stated that he was having difficulty getting the consent of the various owners who had a stake in various pieces of land within the Wood and had received mixed responses to date. Also Katherine now felt that Wilderbrooks did not meet the size required as was too large.
ACTION :The Chair said he would look into both of these and the document and attempt to finish. 
3. Feedback from HDC on NP Documents submitted for review.
The Chair distributed the feedback to date from Norman Kwan of HDC. It seemed Norman had focused on the Housing element of the Plan re: HNS, Site Surveys, Lack of Market Housing and criteria used to decide on sites. The Team in the main felt he had misread / not fully understood what had been produced. He also commented on the Policies which in the main were supported. He said the rest of the Documents had been given to his colleagues to comment on. It was agreed that we should have a F2F meeting with Norman and get feedback from our Consultant and the rest of the HDC Team on the other parts of the report.
ACTION: The Chair to request a meeting . THE FOLLOWING SENT TO HDC TODAY🙁Hi Norman, We had our NP meeting last night and discussed your points. The feeling from the meeting was that you may require more clarity in what we have produced and if unclear then perhaps we need to expand some detail. As regards producing another HNS that’s fine if HDC are going to pay but can’t see what is wrong with the one produced. Anyway we felt that a meeting F2F or on the phone is the way forward rather than emails so that we can clarify any additional requirements sooner and therefore get on with the task at hand. Do you have any idea when your colleagues will complete the other parts of the Plan they are reviewing.Perhaps based on the above you could offer some times and dates to meet)
4. Community Assets
The Chair clarified how CAs were recorded and accepted by HDC and left it to individuals to raise with the PC if they wanted any CAs proposed.
5. Cement Works
The Chair had heard that Steve Dudman’s cut off to fund the purchase of the Cement Works from Hargreaves was the 23rd. March. Some activity had been noted on the site of removal of some work and transport, whether this had any bearing on the purchase or not will soon become evident. The ZED Factory were still interested in purchasing the site.
6. AOB
The Chair stated that he would be presenting an update to the APM on the 27th. April. He would also inform the APM that he would be standing down from the NP Team at the end of April but would make himself available to share any knowledge he had on the Plan to whoever might take over. It was felt that me standing down and HDC’s change of course dictated that we may need a larger provision of funding and needed to put forward to the PC a revised estimate based on what the professionals tell us it will take for them to do more and see this through to a successful conclusion if a successor cant be found. It was felt that if the PC was unable to underwrite the additional cost, then the NP Team would have to seriously consider their future as a committee. Thus there will be some changes and decisions required by the PC.
ACTION The Chair will  prepare with the help of Allison and Faustina the following:
1. What still needs to be done
2. Timescales to complete
3. What are the outstanding costs
4. What will be the additional costs if we can’t get anyone to take over my role and have to use Consultants
Some of the above to complete will depend on how soon we can get a follow up meeting with HDC to clarify their requirements and any further changes to our Plan
Based on the above it was felt that the next meeting should be in 3 weeks time the 5th April
Sean Teatum


Hi All,

Quick and brief update on what’s been going on, which isn’t a lot in all honesty.

We had an NP meeting on 15th. Feb. where we discussed Green Spaces and Community Assets, the recent White Paper on Housing and the additional engagement of a professional to produce some maps for us.
We have some additional work on our Green Spaces which Katherine has agreed to do and have identified the following Community Assets for the PC to consider. These are:
The Village Hall
The Baptist Church
The Gladys Bevan Hall
The Rising Sun.

With regards progress of our draft plan we are still waiting for HDC to respond. Alison has chased Norman Kwan who has promised to respond by the 9th. MARCH on our draft to date and SA.
Norman has sent out some new template’s to use for site selection so will be interesting to get his views on what we have done to date as I have done site selection using two different templates and believe we have covered all his new template requirements already.

A professional has been engaged to produce our maps within the plan

We will be holding our next NP Meeting on 15th of March TBC in the HUB

Sean Teatum
NP Chair.


Attendees:John Rowland, Alan Chilver, Mike Bray, Miles Carey, Joyce Shaw, Katherine Bowlan, Sally Norvell-Baker Sean Teatum, Jennifer Wood, Juliet Hindson, Miles Carey, Jennifer Wood and Paul Hojka

Apologies: Carol and Geoff Parker, Andrew Purches

 Hi All,

Sorry in delay getting some notes out from our last meeting (been busy)
Points covered:

1. Update since last meeting (lots of stuff been sent out) Sean distributed handouts, slides and details from HDC workshop. Some discussion took place and some people said they would read further and feed back any comments
ACTION Miles to send a piece on Village Hall re: Community Asset and Joyce said she would do for Gladys Bevan Hall
2. Update from HDC
No feedback from Norman Kwan yet, who has been chased and stated that he would try and respond by end of week 17th Feb.
PLEASE NOTE Norman has been chased again and has promised response by 9th. March!!!) 
This will be interesting as HDC have sent out a new Site Assessment Template to use. Hopefully their feedback will say our site assessments are OK as I have done twice (and will not be doing again)
3. Green Spaces
We agreed we would use Professional recommended by Alison to produce our maps and include maps of Green Spaces.
ACTION Katherine to add more detail and fill in template sent by Faustina as best she could and return to Sean
4. Draft Consultation Statement
This was  handed out and discussed, any feedback welcome. Sean said he would try to populate and feedback.
ACTION All to comment and feed back to Sean who will populate.
5. AOB
  • Based on no response from certain members the Chair would no longer include them in the distribution,(these are James Counihan, Chris Warren Helen and John Dobbin).
  • The Chair asked whether Miles and Jennifer wanted to be part of the Team and both agreed to join.
  • Paul who attended this evening wanted to be copied into any notes and would decide later on whether to join the Team
  • No other key points raised, DONM would be decided on feedback from HDC
(Based on item 2 update I think the DONM will be 15th. March)

Sean Teatum

Points from NP Workshop held in Billingshurst on 25th. Jan by HDC


Attendees:John Rowland, Sally Norvell Baker, Juliet Hindson, Katherine Bowlan, Carol Parker, Joyce Shaw, Miles Carey, Jennifer Wood and John Teatum (chair)
Apologies: Andrew Purches, Alan Chilver, Mike Newhall & Geoff Parker
1. Update from last meeting
  • I had correspondence from Ivan Mills re: cycle lanes etc. as described below.
1.  Provide cycle access to the Downslink other than at Steyning and Henfield?
2.  Has any consideration been given to opening up the cross country route from Ashington/Wiston via Spithandle lane and the bridleway to Streatham Manor on to Small Dole to connect with the Fulking, Poynings route through to Lewes keeping to the north of the Downs?  This could possibly encourage cycle groups to keep off the A272, A259 etc and enjoy the countryside more.
3. On the much used commuter and touring route from Steyning/Beeding to Shoreham has anything been planned to encourage the use of the coastal path by any groups other than families and people who potter on bikes, ie a tarmac surface suitable for normal bikes?
Based on this we have amended the Community & Infrastructure Doc to include recommendations for cycle lanes between UB & SD and better access to the Downslink as per italics. Consideration should be given to providing better opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians, including marked and protected routes, in particular connecting Beeding with Steyning and Henfield. Perhaps using the footpath and iron bridge which connect Church Lane in Beeding with Kings Barn Lane in Bramber and introducing a cycle lane on the A2037. Provide Small Dole access to the Downslink and improve cycle and walking access between the 2 villages
  • Updated Allison with more info on questionnaire, updated Focus Documents and Community Engagement
  • Received and sent out document from Trevor Cree on the SWAB NP and lack of public info on their development sites.
  • Sent letter to Greenfields re their site and waiting response.
2. Draft SA
  • Sent out Draft SA and raised a few points with Allison, this has now been sent to HDC for comment
3. Green Spaces
Ownership of our Green Spaces are shown below. I have written to those in private ownership (6, 10 & 11) seeking their permission to state this in our NP
1. Memorial Playing Fields next to the Primary school and Sports Hall. –  UBPC only, except carpark HDC
2. Hyde Street Green. –   UBPC
3. Pepperscombe Lane – WSCC
4. Priory Fields –  WSCC
5. St Peter’s Green. – WSCC
7. Salting’s Field –   HDC freehold, leased by UBPC on 15 year lease from 2012
8. Field to the north of Smugglers Lane. – WSCC
9. Small Green in Small Dole –    UBPC
10. Mackley’s Football Field and Skate Park in Small Dole. –  Mackleys
11. Tottington Woods – Alistair and Margaret Hanton of Ownwood Ltd
12. Small Dole Playground –  UBPC
4. Meeting with HDC on 19/01/17
This meeting is with the newly appointed NP Officer Norman Kwan along with Allison Keech and Faustina Bayo. Sally and Joyce said they would attend and I will produce notes of this separately.
5. NP Workshop on 25/01/17
 The following Workshop is being held in Billingshurst. I will attend on behalf of the NP & PC nobody else is able to attend. I will update you further on any amazing outcomes (*;) winking)
Registration and refreshments
Welcome & Introduction
Chris Lyons, Director of Planning, Economic Development & Property, HDC
Horsham District Council Policy Update
Barbara Childs, Head of Strategic Planning & Sustainability, HDC
Revised Offer of Support
Norman Kwan, Neighbourhood Planning Officer, HDC
Key Speakers
·         Moving the Goalposts and Meeting the Communities Wishes – the need for a robust evidence base.
·         Thakeham’s Neighbourhood Planning Experience
Derek Stebbing  Intelligent Plans & Examinations
Mark Keenan, Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
Questions and Answers (Panel)
Breakout Sessions – participants divided into three groups and    attend each session:
1.       Site Assessments and how to do them
2.       Local Green Space Assessment
3.       Sustainability Environmental  Assessment/Sustainability Appraisal
Derek Stebbing/Barbara Childs (scribe – James Overall, Planning Officer, HDC)
South Down National Park Authority Officers (scribe – James Webster  Senior Planning Officer, HDC)
Helen Peacock, Environmental  Co-ordination Manager, HDC/Catherine Howe, Principal Planning Officer, HDC (scribe – Mark Daly Planning Officer, HDC)
Final remarks
Chris Lyons
 6. AOB
  • Joyce raised concern over the road shown as access for Church Farm development. We confirmed that the road quoted as not being acceptable for access is shown as Church Farm Walk via Church Lane which is correct.
  • Point made that we only have 1 PO in the Parish now and that’s in Small Dole
  • Discussion over Community Assets and what should be considered from a list containing: Pubs, Church Halls, Churches, Surgery, Nursing Home, Sheltered Housing, YHA etc. etc. I spoke to Allison on this for advice and she said that the Parish has to be clear and have somebody available to support / present if needed what a Community Asset provides and why it should be classed as one (these can be nominated now and do not have to be in the NP). I think we need to consider what Allison has said and those of you wishing to nominate a CA produce a few lines on why etc. and I will forward these to the PC for consideration ACTION ALL (NO FEEDBACK NO CA)
  • Discussion about future developments, building on flood plain, number of houses required by HDC. Spoke to Allison who said there is no definitive answer or guarantee that things wont change even though we have or haven’t put in our NP. Obviously if its shown in our NP  that we are against a site it adds some support or if technology changes so that we can build on flood plains then this will have to be considered as and when it happens within an NPs time frame. Who knows what may be required in 5 years time.
  • Infrastructure & Access: Raised this with Allison who also raised with HDC the lack of interest and engagement shown by WSCC on our proposals. This will be raised to WSCC by HDC for clarity as if we show a site which they wont comment on until it is in the NP for review its a bit late them coming back to say there are access issues. ONGOING 
  • Should we show all our riverbanks as Green Spaces and would we require the Duke of Norfolk’s consent. The feeling is he would never consent therefore likel to be a waste of time going forward.
Sean Teatum


  • The Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is progressing well since we appointed our new Planning Consultant Allison Keech. As stated previously we have sent Horsham District Council (HDC) our Scoping Document but due to a change in the NP Officer for HDC there has been some delays and are still waiting their response.
  • Allison is busy re-writing our Draft NP and has issued 3 iterations of the Plan to date which we are busy reviewing. I have met with her on 5th. December and reviewed all to date along with feedback received from Sally Norvell-Baker.
  • Visited Riverside Caravan Park to support the owner’s stand against the Environment Agency (EA) and recommended the Parish Council to write to the EA on their behalf (this has now been done) as the site could offer additional housing in the village. As this is a late site it will not be shown in detail in the NP but some reference will be made to cover it.
  • Received an email from Richard West on behalf of the owners of the Church Farm site who are actively seeking an alternative access other than Church Farm Walk for this site which is likely to be via the Countryside Caravan Park.
  • HDC will be holding sessions in the New Year to discuss and advise NP Teams re: The High Court Challenge Henfield Parish Council (PC) had against their NP and how we can minimise these. To ensure we tick all the boxes we have reviewed all our sites again and updated the detail so that we don’t fall foul like the Henfield NP. The advice sent out by Chris Lyons at HDC is ‘’matters regarding sites need to be water tight so that there are no repercussions later down the line’’.
  • Had a meeting at Mackleys with Sam Mackley of Hopegear Properties Ltd who own the site and Les Robinson Planning Consultant to Hopegear Properties Ltd. This was to ensure the needs of their tenants had been noted in a survey we undertook on the site and be included in our plan.
  • Once we complete the Draft version of the NP to the satisfaction of the PC we will send it to HDC, Soutdowns National Park Authority (SDNPA), and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) for comment. It is unlikely, what with Christmas, that this will be before January 2017 which means we are unlikely to be able to consult with the residents until February 2017. Although this is a further delay I do believe it is best to ensure we have covered all angles and not have any areas that could be open for appeal.
  • Some additional money will be required to produce some professional maps of our proposed development sites and green spaces.
  • Do you know what a Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) is? If you do you need to join the NP team. If it is needed it will be undertaken for the whole NP. It may be required if any of the sites chosen within the NP are in close proximity to an internationally designated site. An internationally designated site could include Special Protection Areas (SPAs); Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention). HDC should be able to let us know if we need to do one and this is what we are trying to get them to tell us through asking for a screening opinion. Clear as mud!! I’m glad you think so, but this is why we need somebody like Allison our Consultant to help us through the jargon and law of Planning. We currently believe this won’t be necessary for our sites.
  • Our Top 4 sites for development possibilities in ranking order are : 1.Strip of land at Smugglers Lane, 2. Oxcroft Farm, Small Dole, 3.Church Farm UB, 4. Greenfields, Henfield Road,. The total yield could be 66 dwellings.
  • The Cements Works continues to frustrate all; it will now be March 2017 before we know who the new owners will be as Hargreaves the current owners have extended Steve Dudman’s option to buy until then. We will have to wait and see what happens and which one of the options to develop the site will get the go ahead.
  • We are currently ensuring our Green Spaces have the correct ownership and if not HDC or PC that the owners have been made aware that these are being designated.
  • Reviewing whether we want to identify any Community Assets, these are buildings we would not want to fall into the wrong ownership if put up for sale i.e. local pub, store, hall etc.
  • Our next Public NP Meeting is at the HUB, the Baptist Church UB on 14th. December at 7.30pm.
  • If you have any questions on this please contact me on: or visit the website at:

Sean Teatum
NP Team Chairman

Quick update on the UB NP below. We had a meeting planned for 2nd. November but as we are waiting on some feedback from HDC which is unlikely until next week I have recommended to cancel this meeting until the 16th. November.
  • Draft Scoping Report and part Sustainability Appraisal Produced and sent to HDC and SDNP for feedback.
  • SDNP have responded and stated they do not have the resources to fully respond and are happy with HDC to respond.
  • SDNP did note that they were pleased we had picked up their previous comments and added to the Scoping Report
  • We are waiting a formal response from HDC
  • We only need to do a SEA/SA on the NP not separate SEA/SAs for each site
  • The Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) is different and if needed will be undertaken for the whole NP. If any of the sites within the NP are in close proximity to an internationally designated site then we may need to carry out a HRA. An internationally designated site could include SPAs (Special Protection Areas); SACs (Special Areas of Conservation) and Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention).HDC should be able to let us know if we need to do one – this is what we are trying to get them to tell us through asking for a screening opinion. If they say yes – we will need to look at this but it won’t be the same piece of work as the SEA/SA. It is quite a specialised area of work.
  • In process of reviewing all our sites again and updating the detail so that we don’t fall foul of the Henfield NP and the advice sent out by Chris Lyons at Horsham DC – matters regarding sites need to be water tight so that there are no repercussions later down the line.
  • Visited Riverside Caravan Park and submitted separate report to Simon and Steve, we wont be able to add this as a site as had not been previously shown / publicised but may be able to show some form of support.
Sean Teatum


Things are progressing well since Allison Keech has taken over. 
  • We have produced the results from the sustainability appraisal of our sites which aligned well with our previous analysis of sites. These have been sent out to the Team and no adverse responses received.
  • We wrote to HDC querying a number of sites (5) they showed on their recent SHEL AA which were incorrect. They agreed with all our points and will rectify these when they re-issue.
  • I have had a couple of enquiries from residents on the plan and recent article in the Newsletter.
  • The Scoping Document has been re-written following the recent updates from some environmental bodies and sent out for comments and will be updated with any responses in preparation to re-submit to HDC.
  • The Cement Works looks likely to remain in ‘no man’s land’ as it seems Steve Dudman has been given to Jan 2017 to come up with further funding (not confirmed) which is very disappointing.
  • All correspondence and reports are distributed to the NP Team, PC Chairman and Clerk
  • Next NP Team meeting 7.30 on 12th. October.
Current Plan:
  1.  Set up Sustainability Appraisal (SA) table to assess all of the sites commencing 22nd August 2016. COMPLETED
  2.  Amend Scoping report following responses from 3 environmental bodies – w/c 12 Sept. COMPLETED
  3.  Draft the rest of the SA text and send to HDC  – w/c 23rd Sept. IN PROGRESS
  4.  Amend the NP and include SA results and any other responses to sites etc. –  w/c 21 Oct
  5.  Add SA updates to the Sites document – Steering Group / PC to do also.
  6. Send draft amended NP to HDC, SDNPA, and WSCC for comment.
  7. Respond to any comments – 1 day. Plan now ready for Pre-sub consultation. (that’s when we consult with residents) – Nov/Dec
  8. Make final amendments to the plan following representations and SG review.
  9. Plan now ready for final submission – December 2016.
  10. Following a successful submission and approval by the Inspectorate we will hold a referendum for you to decide whether or not you agree with the plan – April/May 2017
 Carrying out item 3 above so at the moment and on target with the revised timeline.
Sean Teatum
NP Team Chairman.


Hi, for those who may not be on the newsletter distro I have updated below the latest report with some additions to that sent out in the Newsletter. Any queries drop me an email.

I can now confirm that due to us no longer being able to work with rCOH we have a new Planning Consultant, Allison Keech who lives in Shoreham. Unfortunately having reviewed some of the activities with Allison that we thought rCOH had completed we are having to look again at our Sustainability Environmental Assessment (SEA) Reports. Allison has taken on this task and also on her advice we have had to resend our Scoping document to some of the agencies we didn’t get replies from (the Environmental Agency,Natural England and Historic England) as we need to ensure they are aware of our proposals and our NP.

In addition I have written to WSCC to make them aware of the sites we have been considering for development so that they can assess any access problems but they do not have the resources to respond in detail unfortunately unless we wish to pay !!

This additional work will cause delays of about 4 months which means we may not reach the point of holding a referendum until April/May of next year. The reviewed timescale for production is now:

  • Set up Sustainability Appraisal (SA) table to assess all of the sites commencing 22nd August 2016.COMPETED  AND HAVE MEETING ON 13thSEPT WITH ALLISON TO FINALISE
  • Amend Scoping report following responses from 3 environmental bodies – w/c 12 Sept.
  • Draft the rest of the SA text and send to HDC  – w/c 23rd Sept.
  • Amend the NP and include SA results and any other responses to sites etc. –  w/c 21 Oct
  • Add SA updates to the Sites document – Steering Group / PC to do also.
  • Send draft amended NP to HDC, SDNPA, and WSCC for comment.
  • Respond to any comments – 1 day. Plan now ready for Pre-sub consultation. (that’s when we consult with you) – Nov/Dec
  • Make final amendments to the plan following representations and SG review.
  • Plan now ready for final submission – December 2016.
  • Following a successful submission and approval by the Inspectorate we will hold a referendum for you to decide whether or  not you agree with the plan – April/May 2017

We have also added an important statement to our plan which reads ‘Does the UBNP maintain or enhance the opportunities for all young people to make full use of educational and leisure facilities in order to allow them to develop their full potential’. I hope you support this important addition to try and improve what’s available for young people in the Parish.

As I write this there is still no news on the Cement Works. I was hoping to be able to update you that we now had a clear owner for the site but Steve Dudman has been given an extension until the end of August 2016 to exercise his option to buy. Depending what the outcome is on this we may have to consider proposing some additional recommendations to SDNP to make something happen on this very important site.

Our next meeting is on the 7th. September at 7.30 pm in the HUB at Baptist Church all welcome. Any questions on this please drop me an email to: or visit the website at:

I thought you might like sight of the sustainability objectives as stated above and their corresponding indicators. These include those within the Scoping Report plus several additions that were felt important following the consultation feedback.


Objective 1 Housing To provide high quality, affordable housing with a range of size, types and tenures appropriate to local needs:

1a – will the UBNP improve the availability of decent, affordable housing?

1b – will the UBNP provide a range of housing types of various sizes and tenures?

1c – will the UBNP make better use of brownfield land for housing?

Objective 2:Community Facilities To ensure everyone has access to appropriate and affordable community, educational and leisure facilities:

2a – Will the UBNP sustain or increase the provision of community facilities?

2b – Will the UBNP maintain and improve existing educational and leisure facilities?

Objective 3:


To protect and enhance the quality and level of biodiversity and natural habitats within the parish and provide new green infrastructure.

3a – Will the UBNP lead to the loss to biodiversity, flora or fauna as a result of development, either directly or through habitat fragmentation?

Objective 4: 


To conserve and enhance the quality of landscape and townscape character in the Parish:

4a – Will the UBNP result in a deterioration of the quality of the landscape or village-scape?

Objective 5:


To conserve and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the historical environment of the parish:

5a – Will the UBNP protect and enhance designated features of historical or cultural interest (e.g. Listed buildings, archaeological sites, ancient monuments, the Conservation Area?)

5b – Will the UBNP sustain and enhance the settings and views of heritage assets?

Objective 6:


To ensure that development does not increase the risk of flooding.

6a – Does the UBNP minimise or aim to mitigate the risk of flooding?

6b – Will the UBNP ensure removal of surface water by sustainable methods that will enhance the environment and biodiversity?


Objective 7:


To ensure new development does not increase on street parking along the narrow roads and lanes and improves facilities for pedestrians.

7a – will the UBNP support new or improved pavements, crossings, signage and public realm areas?

7b – Will the UBNP ensure that all new development has adequate on-site parking provision?

Objective 8


Support the growth of local businesses to meet the needs of the parish.

Will the UBNP support existing shops and businesses?

Will the UBNP provide potential for new businesses within the parish?



Sean Teatum Chair of NP Steering Group


Bit of a delay since the APM (end of April) where we were hoping to get our Draft NP for consultation around about that time only to be told there may be another 6 weeks to production. Basically things had not been completed by rCOH that should have been and we received a rather uncomplimentary email from their MD which I took exception to. To cut a long story short AiRS supported our concerns and have removed rCOH from their list of consultants for the future and we have a new consultant from Shoreham who feels we may have the Draft NP by October (TBC).
Key Points 
    • Issues with AiRS and rCOH  had now been resolved.
    • We would no longer be using rCOH who had been replaced  by Alison Keech a Freelance Planner BSc (Hons), MSC, MRTPI. She has over 20 years experience in Economic Development, Regeneration & Planning in both the public and private sector. Full member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Experience include project and programme management, area investment frameworks, funding bids and partnership development. Currently manages a number of the strategic planning projects at Enplan and responsible for the public consultation exercises and co-ordinating accompanying Environmental Statements and planning applications. Worked on the Burgess Hill NP and currently working on the Lavant, Seaford and Fairlight .
  • Details of the decision and transfer of responsibilities and costs etc. have been circulated on a separate emails and supported by PC Chair and Clerk.
  • A new request for additional funding from Locality has been submitted.
  • I met the new Planning Consultant along with Alan Chilver and Faustina Bayo on 29th. June and summarised where we were and went through  our proposed sites for development and Green Spaces.
  • Alison raised the outstanding sustainability reports and the work that hadn’t been done by rCOH to analyse each of our sites for sustainability. She would produce a set of criteria that we could use to carry out this work. She will also review our sites that have not been recommended to ensure we have fully documented these to meet any Examiner’s questions. She also stated that we needed to show individual reports for each of the recommended sites as well.
  • She suggested that we should write again to the Church Farm Developer to ask them to re-consider access arrangements and if they could not be changed to consider excluding it from our list of recommendations. Also to reconsider whether we should include Oxcroft Farm in Small Dole rather than show it as reserve.
  • Alison felt it would be within the scope of the NP to show our policy for the Cement Works in line with SDNPA’s support but not show any individual proposal at this time.
  • Steve Dudman has exercised his option on the Cement Works and completion could be within 28 days from 24th. June.I have had this confirmed by Hargreaves. If this happens the ZED Factory will withdraw their proposals as I have spoken to both and there is no way they will work together. I have offered Steve Dudman my cooperation in communicating any plans he might have for the site with the community (feel its best to keep in the loop) and am meeting with Ed Carr of the Shoreham South Down Project later this week to discuss.
  • Write to Church Farm Developers re: Access,
  • Consider whether Small Dole site Oxcroft Farm should be included in NP rather than reserve.
  • Review Site Allocation Review Forms and produce ones for sites allocated
  • On receipt of Sustainability Criteria re-appraise all sites
  • Consider adding recommendation for Re-Development of Sports Hall to be self funding from income produced by providing sheltered or affordable accommodation on the site.
  • Continue to progress development of Cement Works regardless of change in ownership 
  • Based on first impressions Alison felt that the Draft NP could be available by end of October 
  • DONM 20th. July 2016 at the HUB at 7.30pm.
Sean Teatum

Upper Beeding NP Housing and Development- Version 18 draft May 2016

Upper Beeding Parish NP Country & Environment V7 May 2016

Presentation to APM on 28th April 2016

Neighbourhood Plan UB Presentation 28th April 2016

NP Update March/April 2016

1. Have met with Hargreaves and SDNP re: Cement Works and introduced them to Ali Saud from Wescom Group and backer for the project,. Meetings productive and communications will continue. Critical date will be end May/June when it will be clear whether Steve Dudman will exercise his option to buy the site. Once this is known we will be able to determine what will be the next steps. SDNP still support the Community / ZED Factory’s proposals but obviously will be reviewing any others from other developers if they meet their criteria. CBRE being used to assess site and proposals

2. Have had more details re: the Greenfields Site on Henfield Road, communications from WSCC that they will not be producing any detailed plans for the site in Smugglers Lane until after the referendum and whether site is accepted. Oxcroft Farm have questioned our decision re: making them a reserve site, Valerie Manor producing some plans and still waiting details from Church Farm.

3. Still no response on further detail from Odyssey re: Traffic Report having chased so have left with PC how they want to progress.

4. Have identified some Community Assets and more detail on Green Spaces, Field beside Rising Sun have declined to have their site identified as a Green Space.

5. Have submitted all detail to AiRS and rCOH and updated / amended their first draft Pre-Sub Plan and waiting their response and hopefully their latest Pre-Sub Plan so that we can present by end of March (my cut off before handing back to PC) so hopefully will meet deadline.

1. Produced Foreword and Front Cover for Draft Plan

2. Produced Green Sites Detail & Photos for E&C Doc and Draft Plan

3. Met with Developers (Reside)for Church Farm site (12 dwellings and 30% affordable). We made it clear that access could not be via Church Lane and suggested the Caravan Park. This could be of mutual benefit to the Caravan site also. Reside seemed to understand our reasons and requests and said they would like to work with us and the Community to develop the site. Plan and detail have now been added to H&D Doc and available for draft plan.

4. Valerie Manor plans have been produced and added to H&D Doc. 2 storey accommodation for day care, a specialist residential facility for dementia and / or nursing care (possibly 20 beds) to manage the demands of the local community. This is also being supported by WSCC.

5. Inspector’s Report on Henfield NP has suggested that the Highdown Nurseries Site Small Dole will be supported subject to:
i. must demonstrate that the site/premises is no longer needed and/or commercially viable for its current use
ii satisfactory access can be achieved to Shoreham Road without harming the amenities of local residents; and
iii. the design of the scheme has regard to the character of the local area and amenities of surrounding properties
If these are not met it may leave our site at Oxcroft Farm being available to be put forward.

6. Due to delays in getting some of the detail on our proposed sites, updates on Green Sites, issues over production of Policy Maps and sickness at rCOH has meant that our Draft Plan was not produced on 23rd. March. All the previous issues have now been resolved and info sent to rCOH and rCOH have agreed to produce the Policy Maps. We are now waiting a final date from rCOH to produce and are still hoping that this could be made public to the Local Community on 28th. April at the APM subject to sign off by the UBPC the week before.

Sean Teatum 6th. April 2016

Neighbourhood Plan Update Feb. 2016

Hi All,

Not a lot has happened since my last update as I seem to be waiting for other people to complete their actions which are:

1. Odyssey asked to provide detail of what they would produce and cost if they set up video filming of Hyde Lane to roundabout. Have chased but still waiting

2. All proposed sites have been asked to produce more detail and access arrangements for sites, still waiting.

3. Oxcroft Farm Trustees/Reps told that this would now be a reserve site and only used if the Allotment site in Small Dole proposed by Henfield PC fell through. Also henfield PC updated.

4. Attended presentation by the South Down Project on the Cement Works in Steyning held by the 10:10 Group. Interesting proposals (at least 2,200+ Homes). Separate report circulated. Waiting for meetings with SDNP and Hargreaves re: the ZED Factory proposals and backing by Wescom Group, this should take place by end Feb. SDNP Plan due to be publised end of march so should know then whether any change has been taken on their housing policy. Steve Dudman states he has funding and plan and will execute his option for June 2016. We shall wait and see.

5. Rydon Homes questioned the probability of talking to the NP again as they had read the Odyssey report had not so far thrown up any major traffic issues . My response to them was: ” Our consultants advise that the Oddessey Report, is a red herring which may have given you hope when there wasn’t any i.e. The sites were not rejected on highways grounds.Both the Rydon sites have been eliminated for the same reasons as HDC refused planning permission due to they are outside the curtilege of the village, development too large, some surface water issues and the community don’t want them.I would add that you will have an opportunity to comment on the Pre-submission plan during the Reg 14 consultation period just like everyone else. ”

6. Once we get the plans for sites these will be reviewed by rCOH to produce the Pre-Submission Plan for Reg 14 Consultation. Hopefully still aiming for this to be out for consultation in March.


Sean Teatum

Neighbourhood Plan Update January 2016

Happy new Year to you all.
Not a lot has happened since my last report on 1st. December 2015 but a number of activities reported previously have either been updated or chased for responses. The following are the key points:
Response received from Henfield PC on Oxcroft Farm suggesting that this may not be needed. HDC commented it was up to us. Feedback to date from 2 people has indicated that we should possibly reconsider (not very conclusive to my mind) I have asked rCOH (our consultants) whether we could have in our NP with the caveat that we only progress if the Henfield PC Nursery site doesn’t materialise and the Waites appeal does not get approve. Waiting response but will formally decide at next week’s NP Meeting.
I have asked Greenfield site owner to submit their plans for the site and both the Field by Rising Sun and Church Farm have been given rCOH details to assist in any plans.
Details of Smugglers Lane status was provide by WSCC and is an ‘Adopted Green lane’
Traffic Report received and circulated from the comments received I have asked the author to review the following:
– Are we sure she got the right road. 900 cars an hour!
– Pound Lane is NOT the problem ! Hyde Lane IS. Send Odyssey back to the drawing board / counter
– Surprised but happy that the experts report thinks there is enough capacity without alteration. The last thing we need is WSCC slapping double yellows down Hyde Lane as that would force a huge alternative parking situation on the village.
– There is no mention of Church lane leading to Church Farm Walk . Church Lane is very narrow and serves – Church Walk I spend a lot of time giving way to traffic trying to get to and from both roads there is no other way to get to Church Farm Walk
– Hyde Lane is a problem
– Did the survey take account of parked cars on Hyde Lane leaving only one lane for moving traffic? Or was it merely counting vehicles on an assumed standard width road which would be expected to allow for traffic moving in both directions simultaneously?
Have chased for response but still waiting!!!!
Received confirmation that Bill Duster has the Backing of the Wescom Group to fund the development. setting up meetings with SDNP, Hargreaves and Steve Dudman to discuss and meet the Wescom Grop
Other Plan produced by the Shoreham Group (Ed Carr) to include 2000+ homes is being presented to the Steyning 10 10 Group on 27th Jan. if anyone wants to pop along to the Norfolk Arms for 8pm.
Hopefully once we get the response from HDC, update to traffic report and final list of sites rCOH can finalise the Pre-Sub for circulation to the Community. Hopefully by mid Feb 2016!!!
Next NP Meeting 13th Jan

Sean Teatum

Housing Development Meeting Upper Beeding on 17th. November 2015

Meeting with SDNP & HDC and our Consultants to discuss and review the NP Team’s recommendations

 We discussed al the sites we were proposing and had put to the Community and reviewed a couple of the SDNP sites for re-consideration and the impact of site 1 on site 2&3 and the options for losing any employment opportunities. The list below is my view from those discussed:
1 Strip of land Smugglers Lane: I agreed to send Jon detail of this site from WSCC, although it is subject to the outcome of the Traffic Report for Pound Lane there was some concern that if we put this forward and its accepted it could leave us open for appeal or further need to reconsider sites 2 & 3 below. I will also seek WSCC view now that Rydon has been rejected. Also some concern re: the old thatched cottage close by.
2 Field at Pound Lane above land in 1: Not recommended but need to note comment in 1.
3 Field at Pound Lane above land in 2 : As above
4 2 Dacre Villas : Windfall site
5 Newbrook Ind. Est.  Pound Lane: Not included or discussed.
6 Land at Greenfields Henfield Road: Some concern over loss of job opportunities in the Parish so need to ensure we can relocate to Mackleys or the PC offer some assistance to consider other relocation opportunities.
7 Land on Shoreham Road High Trees: Not included or discussed.
8 Field next to the Rising Sun:: Due to the discussion on site14 SDNP suggested we should review this site again and both they and rCOH would review the flood impact on the site as this could be possibly got around. Although there was concern from residents backing onto this site consideration should be given to siting the development to the far end of the land away from the Rising Sun and residents in Dawn Close. To be reconsidered.
9 Shoreham Rd behind trees between Toll Cottage and bungalows: Not included or discussed.
10 Cement Works: Part of the Cement Works Development and Policy
11 Behind Post Office, Small Dole. Oxcroft Farm South End: This was the late addition and details will be sent to rCOH for further consideration. There was possible question on flooding and access and a need to know why the Waites development was rejected by HDC and going to appeal in New Year. I attach the formal decision from HDC but in brief it was declined due to the site being outside the defined built up area, would harm the character of the open and rural landscape, result in urbanisation,remote from local services and centre, not a sustainable development and no proof of affordable homes being provide. Need to see how Oxcroft Farm proposals don’t fall into same trap.
12 The Bostal Between Blesswell Farm and 12 Castletown: Windfall site
13 College Rd: Not included or discussed.
14 Beeding Court Farm: SDNP felt they would not be able to support this mainly due to the negative view it would have on the landscape even though there may be an option to part develop as a CLT. I agreed to talk to the Land Owner to see if he would be willing to carry out a Landscape Assessment and SDNP said they would be happy to supply the owner with their requirements for the site.
15 Henfield Rd Castletown:Not included and reason for excluding reviewed and agreed.
16 Valerie Manor Henfield Rd: There seemed support for this from SDNP but we were advised from HDC to contact Karen Wells of HDC to get her view and support and discuss this with the owner.
17 Church Farm UB Adj. Caravan Park: This was discussed and is dependant on getting some more detail from the owners of their plans (issue over size of site and owner producing more detail). This is also dependent on the Traffic Survey results. I will pursue the owner.
All in all a very useful meeting. We have a possible 7 sites: 1,6, 8,11,14,16 & 17 (in bold) which will need to be confirmed before producing the Draft.
Next steps are:
  • HDC to review the sites in detail and provide feedback (be great if by end of November)
  • rCOH to look into new info provided on sites and continue to progress and send Sean T some info on producing basic plans
  • rCOH still aiming to produce Draft Plan by December
  • NP Team need to review Business Needs for the Parish
  • Think SDNP escaped without actions!! except reviewing flooding of site 8 and any other worries. Plus set up meeting with colleague on Tourism.
If I missed anything please shout will forward separate plans to Jon as agreed rather than bombard you all but let me know if you want anything else.



October 25th 2015

I suppose you have been wondering what the NP Team have been up to after holding the Community Events and reviewing what sites you the Community wanted. I think you made it very clear that you didn’t want Rydon. Hopefully you will see this reflected in the sites we are putting forward for inclusion in the Draft Plan. These have been supported by the Parish Council but don’t worry you still have time to make your feelings known during the consultation period for the Draft Plan and finally when you vote YES or NO in the referendum. Please remember though that although we have taken on board all your feedback we have had to review each site using a set of criteria covering housing type, location, whether affordable, accessibility, traffic flow, improvements to the community, flood risk, topography, biodiversity, the economy, size of site, impact on infrastructure etc.
We will be in touch shortly with dates for the Consultation and make available at these how sites were assessed.

Our latest updates and docs are shown below.
Sean Teatum NP Team Chairman