1 COMMUNITY FORUM (CLANFIELD, HORNDEAN & ROWLANDS CASTLE) 8 April 2014
EAST HAMPSHIRE 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 Petersfield 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 East Hampshire – 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 Cowplain. 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 & Bordon 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