May 2017 Update to Parish Council Plus Feedback from PC & HDC

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

Sean

UBNP Team Chair

REFERENCE TO MARKET & AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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.

NOTES OF NP MEETING 12th. APRIL 2017

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.
DONM TBA
 
Sean Teatum

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: SEAN TEATUM <teatum@btopenworld.com>
To: Norman Kwan <norman.kwan@horsham.gov.uk>; Allison Keech <keechplanning@gmail.com>; Faustina Bayo <faustina.bayo@ruralsussex.org.uk>; Michael Eastham <michael.eastham@horsham.gov.uk>; neighbourhood.planning <neighbourhood.planning@horsham.gov.uk>
Cc: Tom Warder <tom.warder@ruralsussex.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017, 11:05
Subject: UB NP DECISION ON NEW HNS OR NOT

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
 
PROS
  • 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)
  • ANY OTHERS
CONS
  • 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
  • ANY OTHERS
Sean Teatum


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:
 
Allison:
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.
Faustina:
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.
 
Faustina
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.
 
MOTION: PROPOSAL TO PRODUCE A SECOND HENFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
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. 
 
 
Sean

April 2017 Update to PC

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
THE NEXT NP TEAM MEETING IS 12th APRIL AT 7.30PM IN THE HUB
 
Sean Teatum
NP Chair