Longworth Village Meeting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Longworth Village Meeting MINUTES of VILLAGE MEETING. Held at Longworth Village Hall at 8pm on 16rd February 2016 A large number of villagers attended the meeting. Michael Pearce (MP) opened the meeting by providing an update, from his perspective, of the current position on the proposed Longworth Reservoir as follows. He did though provide a caveat that his assessment may not be wholly accurate, but was nevertheless his understanding and although he encouraged questions from the floor after the update that he might not be able to answer all the queries accurately. During the final stages of the Consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan a letter from Thames Water was received and the following final paragraphs were read out Proposed Reservoir Safeguarding It should be recognised that the proposed Neighbourhood Planning Area includes the area proposed to be safeguarded for a new reservoir as submitted to the Vale of White Horse Part One: Strategic Sites and Policies (please refer to enclosed plans). Policy 14 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Part One: Strategic Sites and Policies, November 2014, sets out that land is safeguarded for a reservoir and ancillary works between the settlements of East Hanney, Drayton and Steventon and that development that might prejudice the implementation of the Upper Thames Reservoir will be refused. Thames Water have supported Policy 14 in principle, but also promoted the safeguarding of the alternative Longworth Reservoir site to the north of the village of Longworth. I will contact you in due course to see if you would like to meet to discuss the safeguarding of the Longworth Reservoir site in the Vale of White Horse Local Plan. Whilst there had been some history with reference to the Reservoir this was the first time that it had been officially mentioned for some time. Advice was sought from a planning policy officer at the Vale and he firstly told us that a Planning Hearing was to take place, in public, on 4th February at which the issue would be discussed. The planning officer also provided some written advice/comment which was read out to the meeting in its entirety as follows:- As a bit of background, Thames Water raised this issue of safeguarding the reservoir site at Longworth at a very late stage (publication version consultation, November 2014) of our Local Plan making process, meaning we were not in a position to include it in our plan. I have attached their statement to the Inspector which I hope adds clarity. They have been conducting feasibility work in recent years which have identified two alternative reservoir options to Abingdon, one at Longworth, one at Chinnor (South Oxfordshire district). No evidence was submitted to us from Thames Water before November 2014 which sought to safeguard land at Longworth. Thames Water are seeking to safeguard land to the north of Longworth, nothing else, just safeguarding the land. They wish for this land to be reflected in a similar manner to the Abingdon site, through a policy and for the land to be identified on our policies map. Safeguarding the land will fundamentally stop any development from occurring on this land until such time as a decision is made on whether or not a reservoir is needed in these areas. The preferred option remains the Abingdon site, over and above others such as Longworth and Chinnor, in South Oxfordshire. The district council has met with Thames Water a number of times since they raised this issue. I understand the current position is that the district council does not object to the safeguarding of land to the north of Longworth, principally because it does not conflict with our emerging Local Plan in any meaningful way. It is treated in a similar manner to the county council seeking to safeguard land to the south of Abingdon for a bypass, even though we do not expect it to be delivered anytime soon, land should be protected just in case. The decision to safeguard the site does not mean that the reservoir will be built there. The Inspector will not consider the details of whether the land north of Longworth is most suitable for a reservoir, that is not his job. For the examination, he will only consider the merits of whether the land should be safeguarded based on the evidence provided (see Thames Water's statement, attached). It is important to note that the decision to have a reservoir at Longworth is not one which will be made by the district council. That decision will be made by the Secretary of State when reviewing Thames Water's future "Water Resource Management Plans" (or WRMPs). They are reviewed every 4-5 years, and the next will be in 2019. Their WRMP is similar to our Local Plans. It identifies what water/wastewater infrastructure is needed to accommodate growth all across their catchment area (south east region) in the short, medium and long term. The WRMP goes through a similar examination process to what our Local Plan is about to go through over the next three weeks. Even if the land is not safeguarded in our Local Plan, that does not stop it from coming forward through their WRMP in the future, if it is considered the most suitable option. The Inspector is likely to discuss this matter with those around the table on the day. I envisage that discussions will principally be between ourselves and Thames Water, but if a representative from Longworth is in attendance, I'm sure he would seek feedback from them also. If not, he may get in touch with the parish council after the hearings. If, following the hearings (3-6 months after) he concludes that the land should be safeguarded, and more widely that our plan can proceed to adoption, we would have to do one more public consultation later this year on our Local Plan. This would accommodate any major modifications requested by the Inspector, of which the safeguarding of land north of Longworth would be one major modification. MP went on to say that he attended the Planning Hearing on the 4th February and whilst the Vale Policy Officer suggested that the Inspector may invite a comment from a Longworth resident, that was not the case and his presence there was confirmed simply as an observer. He further commented that when the “safeguarding” issue was discussed between the Inspector, Thames Water’ consultants who were Savills and the Vale policy officers there was no disagreement between them beyond accepting the lateness of Thames Water’s application to have the land safeguarded in the Vale’s Plan. MP suggested that it was more than likely that the Inspector would find (in 3/6 months when his report is published) in favour of Thames Water and that safeguarding would be applied to the land. This would mean that a further consultation period would be required which could take place later in the year. It was also stated that we had contacted Hugh Hamill (who was present) Chair of Hinton Waldrist Parish Council so that the adjoining Parish’s could liaise as appropriate. Further data was stated i.e. the area proposed to be safeguarded in Longworth amounted to 450 hectares (1,100 acres) and as a comparison the Abingdon site measures 1,400 hectares (3,400 acres) in its entirety and Chinnor about 760 hectares (1,870 acres). Finally MP stated that it appeared that the Abingdon site was proposed as a reservoir that would store “winter flow” from the Thames and Longworth or Chinnor would adopt the strategy described as the “regional water transfer option” again a caveat was introduced to the effect that some of the information available on the internet was contradictory and thus possibly misleading. Martin Eagle asked if the proposed Abingdon reservoir is the same as the Steventon/ Hanney one? Answer – yes. Bernie Martin asked, who Is driving the planning permission, why is it not being made by Thames Water would it come up in searches. Answer – planning would be decided by the Secretary of State and not the Vale and would be submitted by Thames Water. As the safeguarding issue would be a policy within the Vale Local Plan it was thought it would be highlighted by a search. Freda Stevenson, asked is it an alternative. Response was that it is thought that there will be only one and the current thinking is that Abingdon is preferred. The three current options would store water and feed the catchment areas, but are designed differently as previously mentioned. It was stated that there will be no further tangible update until at least 2019 when the latest Water Resource Management Plan will be released, previous reports appeared to be very similar referring to much earlier reports from consultants. Hugh Hamill suggested that in 2015 both Chinnor and Longworth had been provisionally rejected – in favour of the Hanney (Abingdon) site. MP stated that the January 2016 supporting document to Thames Water’s presentation to the Planning Inspector referred to the three options as viable hence why they were wishing to have all three safeguarded. Freda Stevenson - What has been the strategy in Abingdon? a lot of opposition? MP was unaware of the detail. Stanley Duncan –are we able to comment on the proposals? Response was that if Thames Water had correctly applied for safeguarding to be applicable then we would be consulted now. If however the Inspector finds as anticipated and we will not know for about 3/6 months the Vale will have to consult further on the amendments, likely to be much nearer to this year end.