SHENLEY NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
STEERING GROUP MEETING at THE METHODIST CHURCH
On Tuesday 25th January 2020 at 7pm
Attendees: Nicky Beaton (Chair), Rosemary Gilligan (Vice Chair), Richard Archer, Maureen Ashman, Martin Finney, Annie Keen, Rachel Shaw, William Susman, Richard Archer, Rachel Shaw
Apologies: Gavin O’Sullivan
General points and updates
NB has analysed the 78 responses and noted that the majority (over 2/3) are generally positive and/or constructive. Only 7 do not support the Plan out of 4600+ residents, 1660 households! We went to a lot of effort to engage with residents. Public meeting on 14th November with Reg 16 Plan Presentation and Q&A, flyers to all households, A4 posters all over the Village, 3 large banners, numerous notices on all Shenley facebook pages.
RES said that some of the comments were irrelevant in that they misunderstood the remit of a Neighbourhood Plan.
RG said that the inspector would be focussed on whether or not the SNP is in accordance with the NPPF. They will contact us to seek clarification on certain issues. We can submit a summary identifying who is and is not a resident AND landowner.
Worth looking at the latest research done by Oxford University on developments that have no transport links.
30M or 30ft – unworkable perimeter – worth double checking as it has attracted a lot of comment. It has been queried by Hertsmere.
Worth correcting spelling mistakes such as the one cited by DLA. ‘Buildings sighted (sic) at important corners or in mixed use centres…” SC7 – should be ‘sited’.
The group agreed that nothing had been raised in the comments that was a surprise or that made the committee think that they needed to substantially rethink any of the positions put forward in the current SNP
Hertsmere’s position seems to be that they don’t want the definitions of ‘rural density’ and restrictive building regulations in the plan as they have the prospect of Elstree Studios being built, bringing 2000 jobs and Borehamwood already somewhat over-developed.
MF thanked RG and NB for initiating this as without them we would already be lost. MF recalls meeting Harvey Cohen at the Local Plan exhibition who said that he had been to see legal to see if they could stop us (and he thought they could).
It is not clear why they are not going back to government to complain about the housing targets. Instead they seem to have voluntarily doubled the housing target!
The County Council plan ‘corridors of growth’ does not even include Hertsmere. RG pointed out that there is no money in the budget to proceed with improving our infrastructure facilities even if HBC go ahead.
WS pointed out that it is not just Borehamwood that has been over-developed. 20 years ago a village of 300 houses had a further 1000 imposed on them!
RG agreed; the whole borough is already choked with traffic. The only place for sustainable development, however, are Borehamwood and Potters Bar as they have train stations.
The South West Herts Partnership are also looking at sites such as the old Kellogs factory because it would also be a sustainable site.
We are not sure whether or not we are going to be offered a choice of examiners and are waiting to hear more. Hertsmere’s brief to the examiners suggests that there are issues with the SNP in terms of inconsistency with the NPPF in some of the policies and objections from local residents to parts of the plan. We do not agree.
Responding to the amendments suggested in the Consultation
The committee agreed that we would prepare a letter to the examiner making a few pertinent observations about criticisms that are the product of self-interest by providing a list of the links between the respondents and sites currently being put forward for development.
Some of the suggestions are quite sensible and the examiner will make clear which of them we should adopt.
Factual corrections (e.g. King William pub) can be made before referendum.
The examiner will recommend changes. After passing the examination the referendum has to be held within the month.
NB is pursuing Mark Silverman for a meeting.
WS spoke about having a proper planning working Party for the Parish with some overlap with the membership of the steering committee. NB & RG think that that the Working Party should become a committee. Either way going forward the Working Party will have meetings with local developers and residents. This is to keep appropriate separation between the Neighbourhood Plan steering committee and the issues of ‘sites’.
Working Party Members can be sent on HAPTC training when this can be found.
NB met with Peter Evans, Manager of Aldenham Parish Council before Christmas to discuss the following issues:
Peter recommended that Shenley Parish Council now has Planning committee as Radlett does. They meet every couple of weeks. There are 8 members, Cllrs and a planning specialist who is co-opted on for his expertise.
He advised that we should set up our own such committee and insist that HBC take note of the SNP as a working document in their planning decisions currently taking place (and in the future).
The quicker that you can get HBC and developers realising that you are going to police your Neighbourhood plan, then more they will get into the habit of properly referring to the Neighbourhood Plan, discussing issues with the local community and respecting the Plan’s boundaries.
No date for future meetings was set as we are waiting to hear about the appointment of the examiner.