Rob Martin Report Into Neighbourhood Plan

Rob Martin Bsc, CPFA, CiLCA 14 Station Road, Yeoford, Crediton. EX17 5HU

Email: [email protected] Mobile: 07768 829511

Report on the Problems being experienced by Lamerton Parish Council in regard to the production of the Lamerton Neighbourhood Plan

6th NOVEMBER 2020

LAMERTON PARISH COUNCIL & NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

1. I was contacted by Ann Cole on 11th September 2020 and asked if I would consider acting as Locum Clerk for Lamerton PC as she was currently doing the job whilst still a councillor. She believed that there were some matters of concern in the Lamerton Neighbourhood Plan situation and that this was also tied up with a Freedom of Information problem. 2. I explained my background whereby I had been a senior officer in a number of County Councils and had spent the last 23 years working as a parish clerk for a total of 8 parish councils with precepts ranging from £2,000 to £350,000 (Angmering PC in West Sussex). 3. At Angmering, I had been responsible for starting a Community Land Trust (CLT) which was in the process of constructing a dozen truly affordable homes for local people and had been at the centre of seeing its Neighbourhood Plan through to adoption in 2014. I moved from Sussex to Devon in January 2019 and am currently Clerk at Clyst Honiton and Rackenford & Creacombe PCs, both of which are very active. I therefore had a great deal of experience to draw on, which seemed appropriate for the problems being described to me. 4. I pointed out that I would have difficulty taking on the position of Locum Clerk given my location and other commitments, but I would gladly advise on the way forward as a consultant. I quoted my price for doing this at £30 per hour, plus travel. 5. On this basis, I detail my thoughts below, based on what I have been told and what I have learned from other sources. I have spent a number of hours already in researching the Lamerton situation and trying to offer some support to Ann in her parish clerk role.

Procedures

6. The parish council procedures are not robust enough. 7. To be the subject of both and Freedom of Information enquiry and a Judicial Review at the same time, over an unfinished Neighbourhood Plan is not a normal parish council position to be in. Something is obviously going wrong which could end up costing the Parish Council a lot of money. 8. When setting up the Steering Group, it was not correct to assume that this group could make decisions without reference to the Parish Council, whatever individual councillors believed they were agreeing to. This confusion is exacerbated by the involvement of parish councillors in the Steering Group. 9. The parish council was, and still is, the NP ‘sponsoring body’ which receives grant for the Neighbourhood Plan and makes payments on behalf of it. It therefore has the duty to ensure that the money is correctly spent and that the community is able to see what is being undertaken in their name. 10. The fact that VAT is being reclaimed on the money spent, a sensible approach, means that the work is being ordered in the name of the Parish Council and that invoices are approved before being paid. There are specific conditions to local councils reclaiming VAT outlined in Section 33 of the VAT ACT 1994 and the associated VAT Notice 749, which, one way or another, Lamerton Parish Council has not been complying with. In short, if the Steering Group is not part of the Parish Council, it cannot use the Council’s bank account and has to be set up as a separate ‘Body Corporate’ with its own accounts, insurance, constitution and arrangements. The parish council could allow councillors to be representatives on the body (if the constitution allows this) to report back to it on progress, but other councillors

involved would not represent the parish council and could be said to have a conflict of interest and would have to declare an interest at parish council meetings. 11. The reason for this clear segregation of responsibilities is to avoid the confusion that is rife at Lamerton, resulting in potential disputes amongst the community. Clarity and openness is essential. 12. The Steering Group needs to remember that the Neighbourhood Plan is for the community and has to get through a planning inspection and referendum before it means anything. There appear to be matters being discussed in private which at least some people are objecting to, with stances being taken, the result of which is more than likely going to be failure at one of these steps.

Clerk’s Position

13. It is a generally accepted principle that the parish clerk should be an employee. 14. A councillor cannot be paid as the clerk whilst a councillor or for twelve months following resignation as such. Whilst it is possible to continue like this, it is not advisable because it is very difficult for them to fulfil the roles of Proper Officer, RFO and Information Officer whilst taking part in meetings as both the Clerk and Councillor. It is also difficult for other councillors to be able to respond to advice given by the councillor-clerk because of not being able to distinguish between opinion and advice. In the particular situation at Lamerton, I suggest that the sensitivities being expressed result partly from this confusing relationship.

Trust

15. The most obvious thing when looking at the problem is the lack of trust and cooperation between the various parties involved. This is caused by the lack of openness and transparency between the Steering Group, the Parish Council and the wider community. 16. The first thing to happen should be that the Steering Group and Parish Council shares all correspondence they have, as the policies of the NP have to be used by the PC in future planning applications. When this has been done, a joint position statement on all matters relating to the disputed contents of the NP can be agreed and published, including the evidence for the inclusion of the Green Hill development.

ICO

17. The request for information under FOI was initially made of the Parish Council and, given the stance that the Steering Group is nothing to do with the Parish Council, the Clerk its Proper Officer did not have the paperwork requested. The response from the PC to the ICO should have been just this, that it did not have what was requested. The ICO matter would then have been diverted to the individual members of the Steering Group, not as councillors, but as individuals. 18. Holding information back from the Parish Council Proper Officer in these circumstances is obviously nonsense. If there was nothing to hide, why hold the information back?

NP Steering Group

19. It is clear to me that the way Lamerton PC set up the Steering Group was flawed, and that, whatever councillors thought, they could not wash their hands of the matter.

20. The Terms of Reference are contradictory in that one the one hand saying that the PC is setting it up and expects reports on progress, but on the other hand saying that it is not a sub-committee of the Parish Council. 21. There is obviously a clash of personalities between the membership of the Steering Group and the Parish Council membership, not to mention outside individuals. 22. This needs to be resolved and the Parish Council now needs to take ownership of the Neighbourhood Plan as it stands. 23. As the PC set the NP Steering group up, it can just as easily dissolve it and take it forward as its own project. I would suggest this is the only way to start to resolve the issues.

NP Current Position

24. I am surprised that the District Council has allowed the NP to go forward in its current state, given that it is probably aware of the apparent concerns being expressed by residents over the content of the Neighbourhood Plan. 25. My main concern is however the wording of policy H4 which deals with the development of the disputed Green Hill site, as follows:

Policy H4 – Development of Green Hill (Part of, to provide 16/18 Affordable Homes) Development of land at Green Hill is allocated for 16/18 dwellings as one of the Community’s preferred locations. Development should: -  be sensitively designed to respect the setting of the site and the special landscape character of the immediate surroundings  it is developed sensitively taking full account of the landscape character of the site, particularly the raised elevation above the village 26. The danger here is that by asking for 16/18 affordable homes on this site there may be unintended consequences. Unless this is developed as a specific affordable site by the District Council, the interpretation could be that a private developer could come in and offer to build 70 homes, of which the JLP standard 30% affordable would provide the 18 required. This might not be what was envisaged, but could easily be the end result. In the rush to get housing numbers on the ground, both full-market and affordable, District Councils will often take the NP policies and use them to over-ride what other constraints there might be. 27. The term Affordable Homes is not defined within the policy nor are they identified as being for local people, with the Housing Needs Survey only identifying a small number of such people in the village. These will end up being used to house displaced people from elsewhere in the Joint Plan Area. Is that the intention. 28. I would suggest, if this site is to be taken forward, that this policy wording needs to be tightened or the community will not get what it wants, or worse still, get what it does not want. 29. In addition, I am concerned about the way in which the Reg14 consultation has been dealt with. There is a need to properly answer each and every one of the responses to the draft plan tabulated alongside the response to each one. This needs to be done in a matter of fact way, perhaps with changes made to the Plan as a result. There is no such analysis on the website, a requirement at Reg14 stage but there is a somewhat inflammatory set of general statements which I have reproduced at Appendix A to this report. I would suggest that this

statement is inappropriate and is not something I would have written as proper officer of the council. 30. It is this sort of approach that is no doubt causing the unrest being experienced in Lamerton over the Plan and the Green Hill proposal.

Summary

31. My suggestions are:  The Parish Council appoints, as soon as possible, a paid Clerk who would take over the role of Proper Officer, RFO and Information Officer.  If it is not possible to recruit an experienced and qualified Clerk in the short term, a Locum Clerk should be appointed to guide the Council appropriately.  The Parish Council should take responsibility for the Neighbourhood Plan production from this point forward.  All papers relating to the Neighbourhood Plan, the ICO enquiry, the Judicial Review should be shared with the Proper Officer of the Council, currently the acting clerk.  Councillors that refuse to give the papers to the Proper Officer will potentially be subject to referral to the Standards Board under the Code of Conduct. The papers belong to the Parish Council, not the individuals.  The Parish Council should not appeal the ICO decision as it just needs to obtain the information that should be passed on and do so accordingly. An appeal will result in a potential financial penalty for non-compliance which should be avoided. Lamerton PC, which has had the decision addressed to it, will not win an appeal.  The Steering Group should be disbanded by the Parish Council and all matters relating to it going forward must be published by the Clerk in an appropriate manner.  Considerations should be given to taking the Plan process back a stage to pre-Reg14 stage to properly ensure what is acceptable to the community.  Reconciliatory meetings should be held between the Parish Council and:- a) The District Council Planners, to find out what intentions they have for development in Lamerton. b) The Green Hill Site Landowner – to discuss what aspirations they have for this site. c) The Objectors to the Green Hill development, to find out what exactly their position is on its inclusion. d) Any other members of the Community, for their opinions on the various issues that have been brought up.  The membership of the Steering Group should not arrange or chair these meetings, to avoid any animosities that are present encroaching in the process of fact–finding.  A position statement should be produced explaining the situation that exists, and what the Parish Council is going to do about it, such as rewording policies and ensuring they hold up.  Before going to Reg14 again, get the draft Neighbourhood Plan Health-Checked, by an experienced planner.

 Get the Plan through Inspection and Referendum, have it formally ‘made’ by the District Council and use its policies to respond to Planning Applications as they arrive. 32. I am willing to attend a meeting of the parish councillors, not a formal one at this stage I would suggest, to discuss my conclusions if that is appropriate. 33. Doing nothing is not an option.

Rob Martin

6th November 2020

Appendix A

Response to concerns raised during consultation period

Our Neighbourhood Plan is moving forward steadily through the different phases that all such Plans are subjected to. This is to ensure that it will ultimately stand up to official scrutiny and, currently, we are reviewing this with WDBC as we enter Regulation 15 of the process.

During the now concluded 8-week period of public consultation, the Plan Steering Group held a series of Drop-in sessions to which all members of the parish public were invited. The views of those who came along were unanimously favourable.

There were some negative letters received however, almost exclusively concerning the proposed Affordable Homes development adjacent to Green Hill. These identical letters showed that, despite our efforts to advise residents with displays, mailed summaries, Drop-in sessions etc., each writer was plainly ill-informed.

We believe that we need to redress that by once again clarifying the unequivocal facts surrounding that development and the importance of the Neighbourhood Plan in general.

The summary of facts below can be reviewed at your leisure and can be verified by any number of means. Time is still on our side and we would be happy to convene another Drop-In Session to help with your understanding of the realities concerning the Plan. The misconceptions contained in the aforementioned letter, would probably result in the sender ultimately voting against the Plan. This is, of course, their prerogative, but it is not what we feel parish residents signed up for.

The phrase ’don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater’ is highly analogous to those wanting to vote against the Plan through a lack of beneficial knowledge. This would be highly detrimental to the expectations of the rest of the residents as a whole and will open up the village of Lamerton to all manner of unwanted development, against which we would have NO defence in the absence of a Neighbourhood Plan.

The message (of a Plan rejected by the village) sent to local Planning Authorities would be clear…. free reign to approve Planning Applications from greedy developers anywhere in Lamerton.

Do you really want that?

Please feel free to contact a member of the Steering Group to discuss any element of the Plan or to arrange a meeting with us.

Fact Sheet

1. The proposed Green Hill development will almost certainly happen whether or not we include it in our Neighbourhood Plan. 2. If Lamerton does not produce an approved Neighbourhood Plan the West Devon Borough Council will, in accordance with the terms of the Joint Local Plan, determine for themselves the future development needs of the parish and the location of any development sites. 3. West Devon Borough Council will not approve a Neighbourhood Plan which does not include adequate provision for “Affordable Housing”. 4. Developments of 10 Dwellings or less are not required to include provision for “Affordable Housing”. Accordingly, to gain approval, the Lamerton Neighbourhood Plan must include at least one site of at least 11 dwellings. 5. With the exception of “The Old Dairy” all potential development sites identified via the SHLAA are “Greenfield Sites”. Whilst it is admirable to protect all such sites at least one will have to be identified as an ‘Exception Site’ in accordance with the NPPF for development if Affordable Homes are to be built and an approved Neighbourhood Plan is to be achieved. Either the Parish can do this or West Devon will do it on behalf of the parish. 6. The Green Hill development scheme is unique. As the land owner is willing to sell his land at a price significantly below open market rates, it is possible for properties to be built which will be lower in price to buy or to rent. As nobody will build homes at a loss, a proportion of the homes built in Green Hill will be for sale at market levels, in order to subsidise the loss on the ‘Affordable Homes’ Other land owners could elect to do likewise but none have, thus making Green Hill the only site available for this form of development. 7. Given the uniqueness of the Green Hill development opportunity and the assurance of the need for affordable housing from within the village, the Lamerton Parish Council gave its support to West Devon Borough Council for the development to proceed further. 8. At this stage in proceedings the Lamerton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group were made fully aware of the situation regarding the Green Hill development proposal which existed between the Lamerton Parish Council and West Devon Borough Council. 9. Faced with the choice of either supporting the Green Hill site and its likely development or identifying another site which would be additional development within the Parish, the Lamerton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group elected unanimously to support the Green Hill site. 10. The development proposes that properties will be for existing parish residents or for those with a demonstrable parish link. The criterion has not yet been fully determined and it is confirmed by WDBC that a separate body, at least partly made up of Parish residents, will compile the criteria. Once finalised the criteria will remain in perpetuity for each affordable property. 11. The development of “Brownfield Sites” will be given development priority. Lamerton has only one such site “The Old Dairy”. The size of the site, together with its proximity to listed buildings, indicates that the site will not be large enough to accommodate 12 dwellings or more. Whilst it is a favoured site it is of insufficient size to achieve an approved Neighbourhood Plan. A second site of 12 dwellings or more is therefore still required. 12. The proposal for a development scheme on the Green Hill site was brought to the attention of the Lamerton Parish Council by West Devon Borough Council. Contrary to the belief of some residents the Lamerton Neighbourhood Planning Group had absolutely no involvement in this proposal at that time.

13. The joint Local Plan clearly states that it expects villages/parishes to provide details of suitable developments through approved Neighbourhood Plans. 14. West Devon Borough Council, through policies contained within the Joint Local Plan, has clearly indicated that development outside of the generally regarded village area of the parish will not be supported. 15. West Devon Borough Council has on numerous occasions assured the Lamerton Parish Council that sufficient interest exists within the Parish to justify the Green Hill development. We continue to push for updated assurances that this continues to be the case. 16. The Joint Local Plan clearly states that Lamerton is required to meet a “minimum” housing need of 20 dwellings between 2014 and 2034. 17. As part of the further evaluation process for supporting the Green Hill development site the Lamerton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered the following: a. The Bull Field site had a planning application turned down by West Devon Borough and was therefore no longer a site for consideration. b. The land owner of the Chestnut Close site is the same as that for the Green Hill site, although the infrastructure cost would be significantly higher at the former and would massively increase traffic issues by the School junction. c. The Old Dairy as already mentioned is considered to be of inadequate size to provide affordable housing. d. In light of reasons given by the Government Inspector for rejecting a recent planning appeal it was felt a similar argument would almost certainly be made in respect of land behind The Farriers. e. The Highways Authority has no objection to the Green Hill site and the impact of increased traffic either on Green Hill or onto the B3362. f. The concerns raised regarding limiting future development of the Green Hill site can and will be addressed under the future planning application for the site. Lamerton Neighbourhood Plan, when approved, will be of major assistance in doing this. g. Assurances from West Devon Borough Council that all steps are being taken to minimise any visual intrusion to exist local residents from the development of the site.