on Tuesday 28th March at 6pm

Attendees – Nicky Beaton (Chair)  Rosemary Gilligan, James Hulme, Helen Hussain (Vice Chair), Jan Quinton, Natalie Susman.

Apologies for absence – Peter Bourton, Shirley Bury, Stephen Bury, Gavin O’Sullivan, Robert Perlmutter

  1. Developers Q&A

Attendees – Brian Comer & Tom Donland-Comer Homes, Stuart Buckingham-Smart & Chris Griggs-Griggs Homes and James Craig-Heronslea.   Representative from Oakridge Homes did not come.

A number of topics were discussed, summary level detail below – It must be noted that the purpose of the session was fact finding and to have a general discussion.  For a successful plan we must get as much information as possible.

  • Cromer Homes group shared their map of ownership of land around Shenley, discussion on what sites would be suitable for development – James from Griggs felt that any new development would need to be kept tight around the village – Rosemary agreed that the Hertsmere Planning department had also made that comment.
  • Hertsmere plan was discussed regarding the volume of housing the borough needs to build. The Govt have indicated to Hertsmere that 9000 units will be required in the Borough over the next 10-15 years.   The current plan allows for 4,500 units.  It is not known how many Shenley will be expected to have.  The Steering Committee will try and get as much information as possible over the next 4/5 months.   We are told that no decisions have been made but ultimately Shenley’s Neighbourhood Plan cannot conflict with Hertsmere new Local Plan.
  • General discussion of other land owners in the area – Arsenal site, Oaklands College – developers asked if the Council owned land had been identified.
  • Possible school redevelopment at a new site was discussed. When Porters Park was built the open space next to Andrew Close was ear marked for a possible new school/extension to the existing Primary School.  This did not happen and now the ‘School site’ is managed by Shenley Park – Green open space which should be protected.  Cromer indicated that they were willing to discuss the subject in more detail as part of a housing development – they cited Barnet as an example.  It was noted that Radlett’s Caroline Cupper is looking for a site for a senior school.
  • Discussion around affordable housing and what is affordable – Shenley is a high value area so the definition of affordable is not the same for everybody.
  • Affordable and social housing was further discussed – James commented on the poor state of the social housing they had built as part of the Old Nursery Development. Cromer Homes commented that they had set up their own Housing Association so that any social housing could be managed and vetted by themselves. Rosemary commented that with regard to Porters Park development much of the affordable housing went to East London residents.  Any affordable housing built in the future needs to be available for Shenley residents.
  • On larger developments, which provide a mix of housing – but smaller sized properties then the need to provide affordable housing on larger developments was discussed and how this can cause issues for developers. Natalie pointed out that any extra development in Shenley would cause real problems for our local GP services as they are struggling to cope with patient numbers at the moment.
  • Help to Buy/Shared ownership schemes were discussed and there was a lot of support in the room for these schemes
  • A specific example was discussed (Rest Harrow London Road) it was felt that the village would have preferred the developers first proposal (more smaller properties) but that the confidential pre app process with Hertsmere resulted in fewer houses but larger sq footage – it was commented that a neighbourhood plan would assist the pre app process
  • Discussion on what a ‘small’ house was – the definition was not the same to everybody. It was agreed that we will ask the Community for views as to what people want when they talk about ‘smaller homes’.
  • James (Griggs) commented that if a development was larger housing then if people in the village moved into those houses then that would free up smaller houses.
  • Developers questioned whether any development should creep towards Radlett or Borehamwood – the Steering Committee commented that the Questionnaire confirmed that the majority of Villagers feel that any new development should allow Shenley to remain a village. Rosemary reminded everyone that before Porters Park was build, over extra 1100 homes, Shenley only had around 300 properties.  We do not want a similar situation to happen again.
  • Architectural design features were discussed – developers indicated that they would welcome a checklist and that whilst cost could be an issue they were happy to be consulted further on the specific proposed checklist

2      Launch Meeting on 5th April – Final arrangements

All agreed to arrive at 5.30pm for set up. The following roles were agreed

Car park duty – Gavin

Registration – Nicky (with Natalie at the start)

Key evidence posters  – Who lives where (Helen),  More of/less of poster (Rosemary) and Plan Objectives (Guy)

Food/drink management – Robert

Main room – James, Jan and Natalie as registration becomes quieter

All agreed that they were willing to step in if the timings over ran or questions become too intense


  1. Aims and Objectives

These were discussed and everyone was happy with the wordings and the evidence collected to date (questionnaire responses)

The aims were allocated to each of the working groups so that further evidence could be collected.

The relevant numbers and allocations are as follows – 1, 2, 3, 7, 12 – green belt, 4,5,6 – Amenities, 8,9,13 – Housing 10,11 – Transport

The issue of doctor’s appointments and lack of was discussed  – the Neighbourhood Plan cannot solve the problem but the Amenities group should cover this.

Co-ordinators were reminded that the Neighbourhood Plan cannot solve everything but that all evidence should still be collected as the Parish Council may be able to assist or CIL money may be available for use to resolve something specific.

The approval of the Aims & Objectives was to be put to all members of the steering committee by email (results to be noted at the end of these minutes)

  1. Working Group Co-ordinator roles

Nicky, Helen and Rosemary confirmed they would co-ordinate amenities unless someone steps forward at the launch meeting

Agenda for the Launch meeting was handed out – the working group co-ordinators were reminded that working groups have 20 minutes but that the room booking allowed for 40 minutes of discussions were going well, the group should focus on collecting evidence and not try and solve all of the issues at one sitting

Discussion of presentation by Angela – need to keep to the 15 minute slot was felt to be very important to keep the attendees interested.  Nicky said that she would contact Angela to emphasis the point.

Nicky emphasised that after the Launch Working Party Co-Ordinators must take advantage of people’s initial enthusiasm to keep the momentum going by having frequent meetings in the three to four months following the Launch.  By doing this the bulk of the necessary evidence gathering will achieved so enabling us to start writing the draft Plan in July/August.

  1. Grant

Helen confirmed that the end of grant reporting would take place on the 31st March – all funds have been spent and that the next grant claim (as discussed in the previous meeting) would then be submitted.

Car stickers were discussed as a quote had been obtained but these were too expensive so would not be ordered.

T-shirts had been ordered ad would be available to wear at the launch meeting by all members of the steering committee.

  1. Hertsmere feedback meeting

The discussion of the need for Hertsmere to build 9,000 new homes was discussed as part of the developer’s section. Rosemary confirmed that Hertsmere Planning department could not confirm where these houses would be built.   The lack of information reinforces the feeling by the Committee that everything possible needs to be done to get Shenley Neighbourhood Plan in place as quickly as possible.

  1. A0 map

The designated plan map was shared with the group.

  1. Any other business


  1. Date of next meeting

WEDNESDAY 26TH APRIL at 6pm – Methodist Church

Meeting closed at 8.10pm

AIMS & OBJECTIVES –  An email vote was taken after the meeting to allow all Steering Committee members to approve the revised Aims & Objectives.   By majority vote the Aims & Objectives were approved and will be presented at the Launch Meeting.

MINUTES – Due to time constraints the previous Minutes were not discussed and approved.  These minutes and the minutes for the meeting on 21st February will be discussed and approved at the next meeting.