NPC May 2022 Minutes
HOUGH ON THE HILL PARISH COUNCIL
Neighbourhood Planning Committee
Minutes 10.05.22
NOTES of the Hough on the Hill Neighbourhood Planning Committee held at Hough on the Hill Church Community area at 7.00pm on Tuesday 10th May 2022.
Present: Cllr A Knott (AK) (in the Chair), R. Moore (RM), R. Twelvetrees (RT), Cllr P. Millnes (PM), Marilyn Taylor (MT); Cllr P. Baker (PB). Cllr A Barrett (AB). Several members of the public also present.
1 Minutes of Meeting held 15th March 2022
The Minutes were approved as a correct record.
Outstanding matters: Analysis of comments made in last two survey questions; and
Action: AK
PC to consider non-planning matters
Action: MT
2 Chairs Actions: Committee Membership
AK reported that due to personal reasons his availability will be uncertain over the coming months. He therefore proposed that PB act as Chair in his absence, and that AB join the committee to ensure consistent presence of the required 3 parish councillors. He also reported that Chris Ward was no longer a member of the committee as he has resigned from the Parish Council. AK will consider with the Parish Council the need for a third councillor to replace him on the Committee. AK is also intending to ask David Hindmarsh to join the Committee to add his expertise.
Agreed
Action: AK
3 Defining Built up Areas
MT reported that following the successful public Workshop on 2nd April, all comments from that event and from the Committee had been fed back to the Consultants. Their revised proposals were discussed.
The Gelston proposals were agreed. The Brandon proposals were agreed, except for the anomaly in the paddock areas to the east. The Hough proposals were agreed except for the inclusion of the playing field which should be queried with the consultants.
Agreed
Action: MT
The only outstanding matter is the position regarding Eastfield Farm complex and whether this sits within or is considered external to the built up area. MT reminded the Committee that one of our criteria is that ‘farms on the edge of settlements relate to the countryside rather than the built form of the settlement’. The consultants had sought views from SKDC. Not conclusive either way. It was agreed that further investigations be made and the matter brought back to the next meeting.
Action: MT/PM
4 Update on Design Guidance
The Committee reviewed the early draft sections of the emerging Design Guidance being prepared by consultants. MT commented that the only major absence was a more detailed explanation of the criteria and design approach used for defining the built up areas. It was also noted that the classification of the villages’ size should correlate to the terms used by SKDC. One of the photos is wrongly labelled. All other issues related to typographical or drafting errors.
Action: MT
5 Local Green Space Proposals
MT reported that there had been a useful site visit with the consultant who was now analysing all the proposed sites against the criteria. This area of work will now be taken forward by RM. The urgent task is contacting all the owners of proposed sites (not those excluded following the site visit) to seek their views. The Chair commented that he hoped owners would be in agreement. Where they are not, there needs to be a robust, compelling and clear cut case for declaration.
Action: RM
6 2022/23 Locality Grant Application
MT reported that the 2021/22 end-of-grant report had been submitted and unused funds returned to Locality. A new application for £1,680 had now been approved to run from June through to the end of March 2023. She hoped these funds would cover all remaining activities, thus keeping calls on Parish Council funds to a minimum.
Noted
7 Platinum Jubilee
The Committee agreed that it would not be appropriate to include any presentation of the neighbourhood planning activities with community events for the Jubilee.
8 Project Plan Review
The only matter outstanding is the letter (call for sites) that needs to be sent to landowners. MT had clarified that this needs only to be concerned with land on the edges of our settlements and in the wider area (ie, not infill sites). The list of landowners was circulated and the draft of the proposed letter.
A complication had arisen because she had received advice from SKDC that - contrary to the position previously understood - it is possible for the Neighbourhood Plan to propose more development options for Brandon and Gelston (where it had been thought only SP5 would apply). If this is correct, it would be beholden on the Committee to specifically ask residents of those settlements whether they would wish to see infill or edge of settlement development allowed. PM believed the advice to be wrong and it was agreed she should seek further clarification before the letters to landowners are sent.
Action: PM/MT
NB Please note this matter has now been clarified and the erroneous advice rescinded. Therefore it t not the case that residents of Brandon and Gelston need to be asked about SP3 and SP4 as only SP5 is the relevant strategic policy that applies in these two settlements.
9 Any Other Business
MT had received an unpleasant visit from a resident of Hough on the Hill making accusations that he was being deliberately excluded from the neighbourhood planning consultation process. Chair confirmed that for multiple days he visited the house to personally explain and deliver the survey. In the end he was left with no alternative to post all communications through the letterbox. It was agreed that AK will write to this individual and also making it clear that committee members should not feel intimidated while carrying out work requested by the Parish Council.
Action: AK
10 Date of Next Meeting
Action: AK book
Set for Thursday 16th June 7pm