SHENLEY NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
STEERING GROUP MEETING at THE METHODIST CHURCH
MONDAY 7TH JANUARY 2019 at 7PM
Attendees: Nicky Beaton (NB –Chair*), Martin Finney (MF*), Rosemary Gilligan (RG – Vice Chair*), Richard Archer (RA*), Rachel Shaw (RS), Julie Lloyd (JL), Sharon Madsen (SM), Angela Koch (AK), Gavin O Sullivan (GS*). Apologies: Maureen Ashman* & Gemma Archer* * Denotes Steering Group member
Members of the public attending for the first 30 minutes (minutes at the back of this meeting record):
James Craig (JC)
Eddie McGuire (EMG)
- Approval of previous minutes: Minutes of the meeting on 5th December 2018.
- Some points not yet completed (A, E, I, K)
- B is not quite accurate – you only need 1 or 2 sites for local green space designation.
- Approval of the objectives of the Shenley Plan Vision and Objectives (including some small changes as noted by AK).
- RG and NB confirmed that the Steering Group had submitted a 34 page document in response to Hertsmere’s consultation on behalf of Shenley Parish Council and the Steering Group
- MF found it impossible to get in to the online system as his password was constantly rejected for 2 weeks. In the end he had to hand write his feedback and run it down to the offices himself.
- JL’s sister sent an email which bounced back as a result of which she missed the deadline and HBC have refused to take the submissions.
- SM to see if she can find confirmation in writing of HBC’s consultation schedule going forward. Are they going to hold a Reg 18 consultation in June/July? SM to write to the planning officer who originally said that there would be one.
- RA to investigate posting all the Developers’ submissions from the Hertsmere Site on our site so that we are being transparent and addressing the fact that Hayley Jago is making it seem as if there is only one plan currently going forward (and that the SNP group wrote it!). AK to send RA some helpful links or names to type into the portal to assist in this.
- AK advised that we should continue to respond to Hayley with consistent and polite rebuttals. AK pointed out that the point of posting these plans is to show that all the developers have submitted plans and drawings and that whether or not any of them get planning permission is down to HBC.
- MF to investigate the status of Tree Preservation Orders and to get an updated TPO plan for Shenley and send to AK before the 7th Feb
- She also advised that we should post (along with the links to these plans) that developers’ plans are not site allocations or a planning applications but documents produced by developers’ keen to promote of sites to Hertsmere. People who have a view about future site allocations should make their feelings known to Hertsmere Planning Department.
- AK to draft a short letter to confirm the scope and purpose of the SNP and that the Neighbourhood Plan cannot and does not allocate sites. (to be signed by Parish Council, AECOM etc to sign) so that when we publish the plan its validity and professionalism cannot be challenged by local gossips on specious grounds.
- RG will keep chasing Locality and Landmark Chambers for meeting dates. No update there as yet.
- A discussion was held as to whether or not to keep the village envelope proposal in the SNP. AK’s recommendation is that it stays in. RG and NB in agreement. RA feels that if it stays in then we should go with the larger boundary area as the smaller boundary area more closely matches Site 4 and thus appears more contrived and controversial. MF pointed out that we are trying to create a strategy for Shenley that keeps the Village as a cohesive whole. Although a village envelope has only a small ‘weighting’ in terms of development, it will be better than nothing if the HBC Local Plan gets scuppered or delayed. The final decision of the group at this point in time was that we would.
- Special policy area approach: AK is consulting an expert to get professional guidance on this and will present it at the next meeting. This approach can be included by HBC themselves in their Local Plan. There seemed to be some interest at the meeting between NB, AK, Anthony Spencer HBC about this policy.
This is an alternative approach which attempts to draw a line around the existing village and say that any further development (outside the ‘line’) would have to respect the historic, green and village nature of the Village. Some of the arguments for this include:
- Shenley has the largest conservation area in the borough.
- Almost all the buildings along London Road are listed.
- If part or all of the village was taken out of the green belt it could damage these buildings. Areas adjacent to a special policy area can therefore be considered as requiring extra planning constraints.
- What are the priorities for the Community Facilities?
Some discussion about a new pavilion v. a catering van were discussed. There is some support for the upgrading of the Harris Lane Pavilion in that the playing fields are currently the only area in which it is possible to have a picnic style event. The catering van did not have such support.
- All to look at Community Facility List and send Angela additional information to flesh out what the policies might mean. g.
- Making a safer pedestrian and cycling environment around Andrews’ Close and the Primary School is to be promoted up the rankings as is a speed reduction scheme.
- Feasibility study for improved local transport.
- New community building and hub (needs description re; senior lunches, facilities for teens, and provision of meeting and office space).
- Harris Lane Pavilion upgrade (needs more description).
- Digital connectivity
- Improved facilities for teenagers.
- Dog Pond
- Everyone to look at the Parliamentary Debate on 25th January and see what unfolds.
- Proof Reading:
- REB to proof read revised Neighbourhood Plan.
- GA to proof read basic conditions statement
- RA to proof read Consultation Statement.
AK to send proof readers their documents by the 8th
Proof readers to return by the 15th.
- Future Meetings:
- Meeting to sign off: 18th February 2019. Next Steering Group meeting proper will be in March – date to be agreed.
- NB to arrange Mock examination (all to attend) /health check date to be set with the Council/Examiner on 21st of February (4pm-9pm?).
- All to read EMG submission to Hertsmere.
Summary record of discussions with/questions from the public:
- James Craig (JC) asked a series of questions about the timing of future steps and future consultation process concerning the Neighbourhood Development Plan.
- JC asked questions about the possibility of an NDO in Shenley. It was explained by AK that this would be a separate process which has its own requirements and timeline.
- JC confirmed his understanding that the SNP cannot allocate sites.
- MF confirmed that land developed under an NDO will remain green belt land.
- RG explained that an NDO can accelerate planning permission. Community support for development keeps the land in the green belt while giving permission for development to take place.
- AK explained that after the Hertsmere Local Plan is issued the Neighbourhood Plan will have to be updated.
- RG explained that, in the absence of a Borough Local Plan, the SNP would protect the Village from unrestricted development.
- AK asked the two landowners present what they felt about the recent Hertsmere consultation.
- EMG objected to JC’s style of questioning/response
- NB pointed out that by offering up sites totalling about 30,000 homes they have left themselves open to other boroughs coming to Hertsmere to take some of their allocation!
- RG has asked Hertsmere why HBC have not pointed out to government that as most of the borough is in the green belt that they will be unable to take the projections.
- AK pointed out that Hertsmere have offered sites before they have offered their policies (which should determine which sites are actually suitable). She had therefore asked the landowners what their understanding of the process would be (but did not receive a clear answer).
- EMG pointed out that JC has made a number of incorrect statements this evening and in relation to EMG’s site and pointed out that this was unhelpful and a waste of the Committee’s time.
- RS agreed with EMG that there were a small number of people who were currently mailing incorrect statements in public and that it was indeed unhelpful.