1 COMMUNITY FORUM (CLANFIELD, & ROWLANDS CASTLE) 8 April 2014

EAST DISTRICT COUNCIL

At a meeting of the Community Forum (Clanfield, Horndean & Rowlands Castle) held on 8 April 2014

Present

Councillor: S Schillemore (Chairman) (minute 33 to part of minute 40)

Councillors: D Denston (Vice-Chairman), D Evans, L Evans and D Newberry

Partners: Councillors B Foster and J Pickering

33 Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2014 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

34 Apologies for Absence

There were apologies for absence from Councillors M Harvey, K Moon, G Shepherd and Parish Councillor T Port.

35 Chairman's Announcements

The Chairman on behalf of the Forum congratulated Cllr Ken Moon on his election as Hampshire County Councillor for Bell Hill Ward.

36 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

37 Public Question Time

There were two public questions:

(i) Future Development in Horndean

Mr J Palmer, a resident of Horndean, addressed the forum about the needs of Horndean in respect of facilities and activities in the light of any future development. He suggested that Parish Councils and the District Council meet on a regular basis to agree the infrastructure needed to be provided.

In reply, Mr Palmer was informed that this already happened.

(ii) The lack of infrastructure in Lovedean

Mr Alan Keys a resident of Lovedean asked about the leaflet which had been distributed at the meeting “Planning in – Your questions answered.” In particular question 4 – Why do we have to have so many in our village/town. The answer in the leaflet said “if your village or town is close or adjacent to a good transport network and/or has facilities such as shops, 2 COMMUNITY FORUM (CLANFIELD, HORNDEAN & ROWLANDS CASTLE) 8 April 2014

schools, doctors’ surgeries or has the space in which to provide them than that is considered a sustainable location for development”.

Lovedean had nothing, there was one school – Woodcroft school which was full, one shop a Tesco Express and the nearest doctors surgery was in . They had not had a public transport service for some years.

In reply it was explained that the site was one that had been allocated in the Local Plan Second Review. Though the process at the time had looked at other sites the Inspector at the time had felt that the site should be allocated.

In reference to facilities they did not need to be in the area only in the vicinity of the development.

38 Urgent Item

RESOLVED that the following urgent decision, taken in accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders, and reported to the Community Forum for Information, be noted:

That up to the sum of £10,000 be released from the environmental improvements developer contributions reserve, held for use in Horndean to part fund the restoration of Horndean War Memorial in time for the Centenary of the outbreak of World War One.

39 Use of Developer Contributions: Horndean

The Forum considered report PS.424/14, which had been previously circulated.

RESOLVED that the application from Horndean Parish Council for Developer Contributions for open space and recreation for £14,550 to part fund the construction of a new bandstand in the grounds of Merchistoun Hall be APPROVED subject to the terms detailed in paragraph 5.2 of the report.

40 The Joint Core Strategy and Future Development in Your Area

The Chairman introduced Julia Potter, Executive Head, Planning and Built Environment, Chris Murray, Service Manager, Planning Development and Ian Godfrey, Principal Policy Planner who gave a presentation. (A copy of the presentation is attached as Appendix 1 to the minutes)

Following the presentation Councillors and members of the pubic made a number of comments and asked a number of questions including:

• The presentation had referred to Developer Contributions, were they what used to be referred to as planning gain?

Yes historically they had.

• Concern was expressed by residents from Clanfield about large developments in the Parish and the potential of more. Could these developments be phased in? There was a need for social cohesion, many of 3

Community Forum (Clanfield, Horndean & Rowlands Castle) (8.4.14)

the new residents had little understanding of the village and were against the sports facilities that had been proposed;

It was a good point that large developments brought bigger community gains, the downside of the large development was that there was an influx of new residents and it took time for them to integrate in the community. There could be phased development. A Community Liaison Officer had been appointed to try and assist with the integration of residents.

• Why then had the Green Lane Development in Clanfield not been phased?

It had been a phased development but with hindsight it should have been slowed down.

• Concern was expressed about infrastructure and the need to secure affordable housing;

• There was concern about the quantity of housing in Clanfield and reference was made to proposed developments of 240 dwellings at the end of Green Lane and 755 new homes within 4 years;

The public were advised not to assume that all of the planning applications would be granted.

• The Inspector had set a minimum of 10,060, why had a maximum not been negotiated?

The Inspector had set a minimum to be determined through the allocations plan. The District Council would have loved to set a maximum but they would not have got this through the Inspector.

• There was a lot of talk about the number of houses but what about the infrastructure, i.e. schools, doctor’s surgeries, roads. There did not appear to be a cohesive infrastructure policy and was not part of any development plan.

This had been part of the evidence and would be developed further. In simple terms the plan needed to be pulled together and the Council needed to consult all the main providers.

When the Planning Service received an application or a consultation from a developer then they are asked to improve the infrastructure for that area. This was not always visible to the public.

• It was understood that a lot of Parish Councils had objected to the term “minimum” being included in the Joint Core Strategy. Why had it stayed?

It was confirmed that there had been strong representations about the use of the word “minimum” and the District Council had asked for this to be amended to “about”. However, the Inspector had chosen to ignore the representations. This was the Inspector’s judgement and the decision had to be accepted. 4 COMMUNITY FORUM (CLANFIELD, HORNDEAN & ROWLANDS CASTLE) 8 April 2014

The allocations plan would determine the housing location of the new but it was agreed that the allocations for a settlement might be reached before the allocations plan was agreed.

• What would people do about employment in the area?

The Core Strategy sets out the proposals for new employment, residents would inevitably seek employment elsewhere, refocusing on major cities and towns i.e. Portsmouth and Havant. A key development in the area was the Dunsbury Hill Farm. This was not just about housing but employment to meet the needs of the community.

• Why had it taken the District Council so long to bring in the Joint Core Strategy and protect the District. A lot of Local Authorities had met the criteria over twelve months ago.

The National Planning Policy Framework had come out in March 2012 and the District had submitted the Joint Core Strategy to the Inspector in May 2012 after 7 years of work. There had been a strong evidence base and public consultation.

It was confirmed that in 2012 fifty five local authorities had submitted plans and most like East Hampshire had not got through. A lot of the plans that had been approved had been submitted before the National Planning Policy Framework had come out. In addition, a lot of the strategies that had been approved now had to consider taking higher housing numbers.

It was confirmed that the Joint Core Strategy would be approved at the next Council meeting on 8 May 2014, following receipt of the Inspector’s final report. In addition the South Downs National Park Authority would also have to approve the Strategy. Once in place it would offer the District more protection and the next important step would be to get the five year land supply in place.

There were a number of large sites in Whitehill & coming in and also four reserve sites in Petersfield. The numbers in the Strategy covered the whole of the period up to 2028.

• What more could be done to control developers contributions and their use? An example was given of the creation of a public footpath, that had been promised but not built yet.

Controls were put in place, footpaths and road improvements were the responsibility of Hampshire County Council and sometimes the work was done after the development had been completed.

• Concern was expressed about the issue of contamination from surface water in the Lovedean area;

• There was concern about the possibility of losing contributions because a Parish Council did not have a local plan or neighbourhood plan in place;

5

Community Forum (Clanfield, Horndean & Rowlands Castle) (8.4.14)

It was explained that developer contributions were moving towards a negotiated site by site basis. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would be introduced and replace Developer Contributions. The District Council would set the rate. CIL was not yet in place and was a year away from being introduced.

• Concern was expressed about the EHDC policy on affordable housing. It was understood that once the property came back to the housing society it would be made available at market price. It was felt that this was surprising and undermined the principle of Affordable Housing;

Officers were bemused by the question as the policy in the Joint Core Strategy spoke about 40% Affordable Housing. The type of Affordable Housing did vary. There was social rent, which was 50% of market value and affordable which was 80% of market value. If it was shared ownership there was the potential to be 50%. Officers asked for the information the question was based on to be forwarded to them in order to produce a more accurate answer.

• There was reference to Neighbourhood plans. The cost and length of time it took to complete this was felt by many to be impractical for a small parish to complete.

41 Appendix 1

The meeting commenced at 6.30 pm and concluded at 8.25 pm

Chairman

This page is intentionally left blank National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (NPPF) • Sets out the Government’s overarching framework for • “Local planning authorities should positively seek planning policy nationally opportunities to meet the development needs of their area” • Presumption in favour of sustainable development, unless specific policies indicate development should be restricted • Sustainable development “is about positive growth – • National restrictions apply in National Parks. making economic, environmental and social progress • Para 115: great weight to conserving landscape and for this and future generations” South Area Community Forum – 8 scenic beauty in NPs which have the highest status of April 2014 protection in relation to these; also great weight to • Use evidence to ensure the Local Plan meets objectively conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage. assessed housing needs in as far as is consistent with • Para 116: ‘major development’ to be refused except in the NPPF (i.e. including paras 115-116) exceptional circumstances and in the public interest. • Identify deliverable sites to provide 5 years worth of • Outside National Park very few restrictions. housing against their housing requirements (+5%) Page 7

National Planning Practice Changes to planning continue Guidance (NPPG) Autumn statement 2013 The government will consult on measures to • Introduced 6 March Minute Item41 "improve further the incentive of the New Homes Bonus" . Measures could include "withholding payments where local authorities • 155 other practice guides are cancelled by 41 NPPG’s have objected to development, and planning including: Advertisements, Air Quality , Flood Risk & Changes to the Planning approvals granted on appeal". Coastal Change, Local Plans, Housing and economic development needs assessments, Health & Wellbeing, Planning performance System The government will consult on increasing Tree Preservation Orders, Planning Conditions, Viability the threshold for designation under its and When is Permission Required. "special measures" policy from 30% to 40% of decisions made on time. Developers can choose to submit major applications directly • There are no printable versions for download. to the Planning Inspectorate where a council has been designated as poor performing. • No major changes but continuing to assess implications DCLG plans to toughen The Joint Core Strategy – 'special measures' criteria Hot off the Press

• Major decisions (large developments) – statutory period of • Report received 1 April for fact-checking (2 weeks for this) 13 weeks to determine application • The JCS is sound and provides an appropriate basis for • If 40% or more are not determined within 13 weeks or if the planning of the East Hants up to 2028 providing a there is a high percentage of applications that are refused Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and then won on appeal a Council could then be in number of modifications are made. “special measures” Principal modifications can be summarised as: • Designations made by DCLG once a year • New policies on Presumption in favour of sustainable • Blaby Council first to be put in “special measures” in development and Accommodation for the Elderly, November 2013 • Increasing the housing requirement to a minimum of 10,060 • Council would then lose control of decision making to dwellings overall and, to be consistent with the position that Planning Inspector and potentially financial penalty of New 10,060 is the minimum to be provided, expressing the Homes Bonus targets for settlements in a similar fashion Page 8

Projected Housing The Joint Core Strategy Step change in housing delivery Completions (including SDNP) •The retention of reserve housing sites until they are

reassessed through the Local Plan: Allocations Plan or Projected Housing Completions 2011 to 2028 Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan, Target 592 (net), including SDNP •Deletion of a sequential approach to the release of land for 900 housing ( but retains best use of brownfield land ), 800 700 Average 367 (net) •Setting targets for accommodation for gypsies, travellers and 600 Average 592 (net)

travelling showpeople, 500

•Updating the amount of housing, employment and retail 400 development in Whitehill and Bordon and, 300 Completions (net) •The introduction of a new policy supporting development that 200 improves employment and workforce skills 100 0 •Recognition of difficult position without 5 year supply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617

Years Total 2011 to 2028 East Hampshire Local Plans Local Plan Part 2 - Allocations

•JCS is Part 1 – Part 2 identifies Joint Core Local Plan specific development sites & detailed Strategy - May (Allocations ) - policies 2014 June 2016 •Covers 43% District outside South After the Joint Core Strategy Downs National Park SDNPA Local •South Downs National Park doing Plan - June 2017 their own Local Plan

•Will not cover places making Neighbourhood Plans, e.g. Neighbourhood • Alton Plans - June 2015 • & onwards • ? • Petersfield (SDNP) Page 9

Local Plan Part 2 - Allocations Managing Speculative Applications Interim Housing Policy Statement

EHDC – Local Plan Part 2 SDNP – Local Plan •Short term policy to manage New Allocations Target • Interim Housing Policy Statement speculative planning applications Pre-production, evidence November 2013 – May Alton 700 base and technical work 2014 before Local Plan Part 2 is finalised (Non SDNP). Four Marks/S Medstead 175 Councillor Workshops February - July 2014 28 February – 30 April • Accelerating the Allocations (Part 2) Plan Liphook 175 leading to formation of a 2014 Whitehill & Bordon 2,725 Draft Plan •Uses JCS Settlement targets • Building a Sustainable Development Defence - not as ‘minimum’ Other villages N of SDNP 150 Draft Plan Consultation September – November January 2015 2014 • Environment Petersfield (SDNP) 700 •Limited weight in determining Liss (SDNP) 150 Publication & Pre- Early 2015 November 2015 • Economy applications Submission Consultation Other villages (SDNP) 100 Submission to Sec of September 2015 June 2016 • Social •Sustainable development case will Horndean 700 State be made to refuse applications Clanfield 200 above targets. Rowlands Castle 150 Examination December 2015 October 2016 • Picking the right battles Total (2011 - 2028) 5,925 Adoption June 2016 June 2017 Total (2011 - 2028) •No Guarantees! 4,975 (excluding SDNP) Proposed Housing Distribution Accelerating Allocations (Part 2) Horndean Exhibition – Community Plan wish list Key Settlement ( new allocations Completions/ New Allocations Speculative Other 100+) Commitments proposals • Local Plans have to comply with statutory requirements for: Alton 982 700 1,000 Local employment & training • 6 week public consultation periods on Four Marks/S Medstead 318 175 400 Transport improvements • Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report Improved infrastructure e.g. flooding telecoms Liphook 624 175 250 • Pre-Publication Plan Public Services, schools doctors etc Whitehill & Bordon 207 2,725 • Publication plan Improvements to Village Centre Other villages N of SDNP 372 150 Green infrastructure & Nature Conservation • Submission Saturday Petersfield 217 700 250 Youth provision • Examination Friday Community faciliites Liss 159 150 25 • Duty to Cooperate Built Sports & Recreation Facilities Other villages SDNP 352 100 • Local community engagement Sports & Recreation Space Horndean 490 700 1,000 Childrens & young people playspace

Clanfield 321 200 200 • Local Plans ‘normally’ take at least 2 years - looking at options to Public Open Space accelerate this e.g. increased resources, improved project Rowlands Castle 92 150 150 management, reduced/less formal community engagement. Totals (2011 - 2028) 4,134 5,925 3,325 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Page 10

Horndean Exhibition - Housing Site Horndean Exhibition – How we will Building a Sustainable Development Preference use the results Defence

HD008-5 • Excellent community engagement with around 500 attendees • Until Council has a 5 Year housing land Supply and Part 1 HD006-5 (JCS) and Part 2 Allocations Plan we are vulnerable to the HD014 • Preferences for community facilities can be basis of negotiation presumption in favour of sustainable development HD001-3 with developers and incorporated into evolution of Allocations Part HD011 2 Local Plan • Economic – Evidence suggest that house building an Area an Others HD002 only has a positive impact on economic sustainability Hazleton • Overwhelming preference for future development is good evidence HD015 of social cohesion that can be used for Social aspect of sustainable • Environment – Need better evidence on local HD016 Saturday development consideration in: environment concerns (e.g. gaps infrastructure Friday HD001-5 • Determining speculative planning applications deficiency) – only National environment constraints HD006 • The evolution of the Allocations Part 2 Local Plan have major weight HD008 HD028 • NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development is • Social - affordable housing requirement, social HD018 Whitedirt paramount cohesion, confidence in democracy HD026

HD001-2

HD 023 Downhouse Area Lovedean Area Area Lovedean Catherington Hornde East Downhouse 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 What CAN Neighbourhood What can Neighbourhood Planning do? Planning NOT do?

• Communities can help draw up detailed planning policy for their area: • Stop or prevent development. This tool has been launched type / location / design / topic-based. by Government to enable and encourage development • Setting out what defines the sense of place now & influence area’s Neighbourhood Planning sense of place 15-20 years time. • Retrospectively affect an existing permission or appeal • More responsibility for Parish Councils – empowers communities. • Identify alternative sites without adequate evidence or information • More material weight in determining decisions on planning applications than Parish Plans or other SPDs. • Deal with non spatial planning matters (local police presence) • Greater community involvement of plans: potentially faster delivery and more consensus. • Deviate from Strategic ‘parent’ Policy documents (i.e. JCS) • Producing evidence: infrastructure priorities / CIL (April 2015) Page 11

Planning Considerations What is the Alternative?

• If a planning application is submitted we have to determine it on The main alternatives to producing a Neighbourhood Plan its merits • Rely on the existing Planning Policy for your local Area – • Full Local Plan needs adopted JCS and an Allocations Plan – East Hampshire District Council Joint Core Strategy (Part 1) NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development outside the National Park. • East Hampshire District Council Local Plan (Part 2: Allocations) (2017) Dealing with Planning Applications • EHDC as a whole does not have a 5 year land supply (3.3 years) – calculated on 592 homes per annum we are 1,000 homes short or • South Downs National Park Local Plan (2017) • SHLAA sites are “options” for consideration for the Local Plan Part 2 Allocations/ SDNP Local Plan/ Neighbourhood Plans – they may or may not be allocated. The SDNPA is reviewing the • Using an alternative Community Planning Tool (e.g. Village SHLAA sites in the Park. Plan, Village Design Statement) • Appeal decisions by Inspectors evidence that if you do not have a • Working with developers 5 year land supply the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. Economic Footprint of 650 Dwellings p.a.- therefore 592 target Planning Considerations in the region of 90% of the figures shown. Applications determined on their individual planning Merits having regard to the following: • NPPF – is it sustainable development ?

•EHDC Interim Housing Policy (EHDC LPA only)

•Housing numbers and employment land targets for each settlement area as identified in the JCS

•Relevant JCS policies and saved 2 nd Review Local Plan policies; emerging Neighbourhood Plans.

•Current position re the 5 year land supply

•National Park purposes and duty & NPPF Paragraphs 115 & 116 in the Park

•Material planning considerations – including community representations, National Park Partnership Management Plan, consultation responses etc. Page 12