Held via video conference Monday 16th March, 2020 at 09.30
Present:
Councillors: Simeon Cole, Chris Barron
Non- council members: Andrew De La Haye (Chair), Leigh Russell, Bill Bloxsome, Max Bassett, Jon Stern
Members of the public – None
1. Apologies for absence – Bob Puzey
2. Declarations of interest and written requests for dispensation – Both Andrew De La Haye & Simeon Cole declared interests.
3. Minutes – it was resolved to adopt the minutes of the meeting held on 30th Jan 2020 as a true and accurate record.
4. Public Consultations
• 90 members of the public attended the consultation in Walford village hall.
• 50 members of the public attended the consultation in Bishopswood of village hall.
• All feedback points from the two consultations were discussed, detail of which can be found on the website [https://walford-ndp.co.uk/project-documents/engagement/consultation/ ].
Agreed to reconvene to discuss next points – Date Thursday 16th April at 2pm via video conference.
Continuation (1) of the 16th March 2020 meeting held online via WebEx
at 14:00 on 16th April 2020
Present:
Councillors: Chris Barron, Bob Puzey
Non- council members: Andrew De La Haye (Chair), Leigh Russell, Bill Bloxsome, Jon Stern.
Members of the public – Robert [surname not known] (caller 1), Bill Cansdale (caller 2)
1. Apologies for absence – Simeon Cole
2. Declarations of interest and written requests for dispensation – The following members will leave the meeting (when appropriate) as they have declared interests as they live in the areas being discussed:
• Andrew De La Haye – Howle Hill
• Bob Puzey – Leys Hill (Bishopswood)
• Leigh Russell – Hom Green
• Jon Stern – Walford
4. Public consultation feedback – Feedback from the consultations were discussed (contd… from meeting on 16th March) and the NDP issues, objectives and policy areas were amended as appropriate. The consultant suggested areas for which draft policies might be prepared for the Steering Group’s consideration. These were agreed with the following provisos:
- Steering Group members would see if they could identify views that needed to be protected.
- Reference should be made to local sites within the environmental objective.
- This objective, and more specifically, that relating to wildlife sites and habitats might be reviewed following the production of a draft policy for these.
- A community facilities policy might include reference to mobility access provision.
- There was insufficient information to suggest the need to identify specific housing needs although housing for elderly people was thought to be important.
- Core Strategy policies for business and economic development need not be duplicated although it is worth considering where there were gaps.
- There was support for climate change policies although no conclusion was drawn about whether they might form a specific section in the NDP, be included within other relevant sections and/or measures set out in an appendix, especially to cover matters that might not be included in planning policies.
5. Assessing & choosing housing sites
• Proposed site assessment criteria and process were discussed and stage 1 (knockout criteria) were agreed. Acceptable sites for stage 2 assessment were defined as:
o In or adjacent to the settlements identified in the core strategy, including Ross-on-Wye border.
o In flood zones 1 and 2, subject to the sequential and exception tests. Where sites had contained land in Zone 3 (and depending upon circumstances Zone2 in combination), consideration should be given to whether the area outside of these was sufficient to form a housing allocation.
o Not affecting national and international nature conservation designations, namely SSSIs and SACs.
o Deliverable. i.e. land owner confirms current availability.
o NOT Major development in the AONB.
o NOT significant adverse effect on heritage assets.
• Stage 2 criteria will be handled at the next meeting.
• Initial outline settlement areas were defined and agreed for Walford (Coughton), Bishopswood and Howle Hill.
o Butler’s Meadow was added to the settlement of Walford (Coughton)
o Walford from saw mill to land opposite the village hall was added into Walford (Coughton)
o Howle Hill was agreed as presented
o The land at CATS was added to Bishopswood
o Walford Court was not included nor was Coughton Farm on the basis that they were not significantly built up areas and there was sufficient gap between them and main built up areas of Walford (Coughton).
6. Communications
6.1 It was agreed to give an update on the progress in the plan on the website. Andrew and Bob will work on this.
6.2 Feedback from the two telephone callers was positive:
▪ Robert said the meeting was consistent and thorough. He also had some concerns about who are these houses for, residents or incomers and about being more audacious about finding housing sites away from flood areas.
▪ Bill Cansdale was impressed with the thoroughness of the meeting.
7. Items for next meeting agenda
7.1 Standard agenda items
7.2 Update on the site assessment criteria
8. Date of continuation meeting
28th April 2020 at 2.30pm
The chair closed the meeting at 16.30
Continuation (2) of the 16th March 2020 meeting held online via WebEx
at 14:30 am on Tuesday 28th April 2020
1. Apologies: To accept apologies and note reasons for absence
None received.
Attending: Andrew De La Haye, Simeon Cole, Jon Stern, Bob Puzey, Chris Barron, Leigh Russell, Monica van Lienden, Dave Berry, Jayne Putland
2. Declarations: To receive declarations of interest and consider any written applications for dispensations
None.
3. Minutes: To accept minutes of the previous meeting held on 16th March 2020.
Not covered as this is an extension of that meeting
Members of the public were invited to speak:
Dave Berry highlighted that Q12 of the public consultation contained feedback suggesting Walford Village Hall as a potential development site. He wanted to make it clear that this was not the case. The Chair commented that as the site had not been submitted it would not be considered.
Dave Berry asked, “what are the site selection criteria”? The Chair outline the Stage 1 items and the fact that they would be published soon along with the submitted sites.
Dave Berry asked if all sites would be published together. The Chair confirmed that they would all be published together.
4. Consultants
4.1 Review stage 1 site assessments
4.2 Define stage 2 site assessment criteria.
It was agreed that these items would be discussed in a later meeting after the stage 1 assessment report was accepted in closed session meeting to follow this.
It was agreed to cover item 7 first as it has a bearing on items 5 and 6.
7. Planning
7.1 Review and amend the project plan
The project plan is currently running more than 2 months behind schedule. We are currently in the task “First pass site assessment” which has a planned end date of 21st March 2020.
7.1.1 Evidence base and update of vision, objectives and policies. Do we need another survey?
It was agreed that although the majority thought we do not need another survey; it should be left in the plan until the quality of the evidence base has been reviewed.
7.1.2 NDP document activities and timeline
It was agreed to move the end date of Task 28 on the plan to July 14th, with follow on tasks being affected accordingly. Chris Barron will update the plan accordingly and circulate it to the group.
7.1.3 Site assessment activities and timeline
See point 7.1.2 above
5. Finance
5.1 Report on spending
We did not spend the expected amount due to the project being delayed by Covid-19. £86 was not able to be claimed from the grant because it was spent prior to the grant provision.
5.2 current financial year
No questions.
5.3 Grant application, next financial year
It was agreed that the reported amounts should be submitted as the budget and grant application.
6. Communications
6.1 Meeting at Walford primary school
Defer until after Covid-19
6.2 Explanation of site assessment process
Paper based on Bill Bloxsome draft to be circulated for approval. Action: Bob
6.3 What size of developments might the parish want (question not asked during the consultation events)
It was agreed that Jon Stern would approach Bill Bloxsome for advice on how to best solicit this information.
As the project has reached a stage where information published is becoming more sensitive it was agreed that a quality process should be introduced to ensure good, clear communications. Therefore, before information is published to anybody outside the Steering Group it should be checked with at least one other Steering Group member for the following:
• Confidentiality
• Sensitivity
• Consistency
• Completeness
• Accuracy
• Transparency
8. Other items.
8.1 Core Strategy and NDP review
It was agreed to leave this item for a later date
8.2 Do we want a village design statement?
It was agreed that Jon Stern would approach Bill Bloxsome for advice.
9. Items for next meeting agenda
It was agreed to hold two types of meeting in future:
a) A regular (monthly) project review covering the three topics of Finance, Communications and Planning.
b) An, as required, meeting producing and reviewing NDP content dependant on activity.
10. Date of next meeting: to be agreed
Wednesday 27th May – 11:00am
Meeting closed 3:43pm