Neighbourhood Plan 2016

14th December 2016

35th Meeting. Present: Paul Weston (PW): David Kiernan (DK):Chris Bishop (CB): Peter Pattison (PP): Nick Bradley (NB): Roger Luscombe (RL). Apology: Sue Cloke

Green Spaces

NB raised question of the school playing field. He agreed it is not classed as a green space and the village no longer had access to it. RLs background information on other green spaces was accepted. NB told of progress on the Victorian orchard in that Church Commissioners (CC) were willing to consider selling it to the parish council (PC). An expert speaker on community orchards has been invited to the next PC meeting on 18th January and that he was thinking about opening the meeting to the village. The CC needed to also consider marketing aspects.

The meeting then moved on to comparative site assessments.

CB said that we needed to examine PW’s draft response on land availability. DK said that aerial photos of the relevant sites would be very useful. PW said that he had tried to join the SHLAA details to fresh information and stressed that every proposal should be inclusive (?) of pictures, comments and informal consultation. CB responded that we have done everything in good faith.

PW suggested complete Informal Consultation by the end of January 2017 (Includes the public)

PP said that Highways have examined Weir Meadow and given a positive response.

PW suggested we visit the Devon Biodiversity Centre (where?) and ask for a report on Ide Parish and buy the report.

NB said that the school confirmed it has no intention at present of developing the land behind the school -currently used as allotments.

PW thought that we need a tabular format showing a list of names, comments etc. of any respondents.

CB then raised subject of Additional Draft Policies.

PW would like to sign off these by mid January if possible.

The meeting then commenced looking at draft policy IDE 04:

NB suggested adding extra activities for Weir Meadow.

DK suggested parking provision for that site.

PW agreed that a list of potential uses would help

PW said that a separate policy for the allotments was not needed.

General:

PW said that the Project Plan needed reviewing and updating. An updated CC plan was needed by the end of January.

DK thought that a straw poll was needed for the orchard.

PW and DK then left the meeting and the work of reviewing and making consistent the draft policies (taking into account DK’s comments) started.

The meeting closed at 17.15 Next Meetings Weds 21st Dec: Draft Policy Reviews (contd) : 10.00 for one hour at CB’s. Next full meeting Friday 6th Jan at 1400 at CB’s.

23rd November 2016

34th Meeting Present:- Chris Bishop, Peter Pattison, Roger Luscombe, Sue Cloke and David Kiernan.

Apologies Nick Bradley and Paul Weston

  1. Grant. Chris reported that the 1st part of the grant (£5,747) ran out last week and that we had spent all but £100 of it and the residue was duly returned. The 2nd grant will start on the 2nd December and Chris has asked for £3,232 to pay Paul, room hire and printing costs etc. The time limit for using this is March 31st. This makes a total of £8879, which is just short of the full amount we are entitled to.

  2. Website. This needs to be updated with past minutes. Chris asked if the Weir Meadow flood map should be put on the web but it was felt further investigation was necessary. Peter has arranged for Michelle Woodgates from the Highways Agency to look at Weir Meadow access. Is it suitable for the proposed use? How intense would traffic flow be? It was felt that Michelle should also look at the access issues regarding this sites in the Comparative Site Assessments.

  3. A letter from Paul Weston was read which gave us an idea of what we need to be doing during the final stages. He promised to send a shortened version for the minutes.

  4. Timescale for completion. Discussion then ensued about the preparation of the consultation material. As we need 6 weeks for consultation, then time to amend the plan and as we ideally aim to complete by 31st March this consultation process should start by 3rd week in January. It will need to be published on the website and hard copies to be available in the shop, the 2 churches, and the 3 pubs.

  5. Policies.

a) The Victorian Orchard (Policy 5 P22 of draft plan). Chris handed round a copy of part of the minutes of the Parish Council meeting on 19/10/16. This area of land is no longer available for development and if we could buy it , it would be the best way forward though we need to proceed cautiously. It was mentioned that Devon Community Orchards give grants and Nick will be asking them to talk to the Parish Council discussion followed on the interpretation of the term “green space” eg the Orchard is “historic” green space and does not require “access” whilst the Green is a recreational space and therefore must have assess.

David said that we need to add more justification for each of the green space sites and suggested a simple table which would look at each site under the following criteria. i) size ii)local in character and iii) special qualities.

b) Weir Meadow ( Policy 4 P20 of draft plan) it was felt that this whole policy needs redrafting since it is tied in with Pynes farm negotiations. David will talk to Paul about this. We need broad ideas for the use of Weir meadow and Nick Bradley is setting up a sub-committee of people with an interest in how it could be used.

c) Pynes farm (Policy 1 P15) Paul has asked to see the revised plan for 10 houses instead of 13 in the initial broad proposal. We may not get affordable housing with only 10 dwellings. Chris or Nick to contact Church Commissioners about amendments.

6) Businesses. There is very little evidence of business opinion despite having hand- delivered letters to identified premises and it was suggested that a specific questionnaire be put into the pre-submission document or use the letter as an appendix to the consultation statement

Date of next meeting 14/12/16 at 2pm at venue to be arranged.

16th November 2016

At the Parish Council Meeting of 16th November, there were items on the agenda concerning Weir Meadow and Victorian Orchard.

26th October 2016

33rd Meeting. Present: Chris Bishop (CB) Roger Luscombe (RL) Peter Pattison (PP) Paul Weston (PW) and David Kiernan (DK)

DK stated need for us to do a site assessment for Pynes Farm. 

CB said need to apply for additional grant. PW told him how to obtain it.

CB said he would update the website

A general discussion took place regarding last week’s meeting. For action to go forward, DK said we need to assess all of the SLAH sites; consider which sites best suit the needs of the village and we need to evaluate, update and report – especially on land availability. PW suggested standard format preferable. Church Commissioners are aware of the issues. P W will send standard assessment survey forms to help us. DK needs “garden site” from CB.  All sites need photos of access and land etc.  Also a need to check out flooding (see online maps) for Weir Meadow.  Add on for pavilion, allotments, etc. Need to demonstrate need for allotments, also need to consult any affected property owners.  DK added that we need to consult County Highways re roads bridges etc to take any traffic load and also seek their opinions.

PW suggested we look at Sport England site for sports guidelines.  What would Sport England like to see on site?  And add any special requirements etc.  CB thought it helpful if we made a list of things to do and order of priority and then proceeded to do so. 

Community Orchard

PP suggested that Nick B inform CC  update that land as described will be classed as “no longer available for development”.  DK said CC were/are willing to enter into a long term arrangement.  We need written confirmation from Church Commissioners.

All Sites Assessments

PW will send us standard survey forms to be used in conjunction with SHLAA and extra land.  DK reminded us that economic, social and environmental aspects need to be demonstrated.  Each site would also need a summary and conclusions.

PW discussed Pyne’s Farm options:-

do nothing

settlement boundary review

allocation of sites/inspections/reports

DK thought allocation of sites is the best option that gives the best level of  community control

19th October 2016

This Meeting with Deloites and the Church Commissioners had a summary published in the November Ide Times.

28th September2016

32nd Meeting. Present CB, NCAB, PP, UMC, Paul Weston and David ?

Apologies RWL

Consultation Statement

Paul has given CB a template for writing this up. CB and 1 other to go through it and email Paul. Ideally it needs a photo of people attending the Pynes Farm meeting. CB needs to get the website up-to-date with minutes and documents.

Village meeting re Pynes Farm proposed development (see minutes of meeting)

This was a packed 1 hour meeting with 65 attendees with over 25% asking questions of Deloittes and a CC representative and making generally positive comments. NCAB felt that the mood of the meeting was that the villagers would “tolerate” a development at Pynes farm as the site needs up-grading. All written evidence supports a development and we would like Weir Meadow (see “responses” summary sheet)

Much discussion followed as to the ways in which we could proceed. While supporting the principle, the choices included

  1. Do nothing. The CC would then have to adhere to the TDC Local Plan which would speed up the NP process. b.Include the site within a redefined settlement limit (it is currently outside the building line)Extending the building line would give the developer more power and make it easier for the CC who could still change their plans as they are only an indicative idea so far. We talked at length about “wrapping a boundary” around the site with/without having a NP Policy and what implications this might have re Weir Meadow. c.Treat site as an “exception” site. David suggested it was not a good idea. d) We do a comparative site assessment with other sites which would prolong the process. If we wanted to dictate type and tenure of dwellings we would have to do a housing needs assessment

It was suggested that we need an agreement on Weir Meadow from the CC before we proceed any further. This could be a leasehold option. Buying is not an option. NCAB offered to ring the CC in London to arrange a meeting with the NP committee ideally in the week starting 17th Oct. We can safeguard WM through the “open spaces” policy.

Funding

Paul W reported that the end of his current contract was coming up. He will confirm by email how many days he has spent on providing support to date and what else he proposes to do before the grants end at. CB was asked to confirm the date by which the grant had to be expended. Paul confirmed that he would be interested in providing further support and would be willing to submit a quote for this work.

8th September 2016

Meeting at the village Hall about Pynes Farm. Minutes elsewhere on the Ide website – Notes on ‘Ide Parish Meeting 8 September re Pynes Farm.’

Chris Bishop did an analysis of the questionnaires returned.

Responses to the Pynes Farm Questionnaire of 08/09/16

Question 1. What do you think in principle about the Church Commissioners’ preliminary proposals for residential development at Pynes Farm Yard?

Yes but too dense

Yes but half to young people

Yes – scheme provides for affordable housing

X- pure profit forces

X- 13 too many but A/H a good thing

Yes in principle but with Weir Meadow released as a sports facility

Yes as long as in keeping/adequate car parking and no impact. Extra car park?

Yes but the Church Commissioners to give back to the community

Yes but consider “U values and eco credentials

Yes but preliminary proposal disheartening

Yes- reasonable proposal in principle

Yes- in principle in favour

Yes- not bad proposal bringing life to the area again

Yes- good in principle but link to Weir Meadow

X- too much development for the size of the site

X- too many small houses with insufficient sized gardens- family sized units preferable

Yes- but smaller development

X This initial plan poor

X Under the 1981 Wildlife and Country Act, the little owls on the site have some protection.

Yes – uses redundant site but will increase traffic in/through a choked road.

20 responses – 14 for / 6 against

Question 2. In your opinion, what are the merits of the proposals you have heard about this evening?

X Needs refinement

Yes Design good- but with sports sweetener

A/H

A/H and CIL for leisure facilities

A/H

Diversity important -A/H

Yes Creates more use of community facilities and tidies up existing area

Church Commissioners need to give something back to the village

Ide residents priority- no Weir Meadow compromising

Yes Sensible use of a brownfield site

Yes More customers for the school/shop

Maybe horses/stable block behind the development

Should meet Local plan directives- not sure it fully complies

Focus on protecting green spaces particularly areas of Great Landscape Value

Probably only site within the village for new housing, especially folk with local connection

15 responses – 6 positive / 4 critical / 4 about affordable housing

Question 3. How might the design and layout be improved?

Surface finishing mirroring stone barns

More parking

More parking- no additional available

Seems to be adequate parking

X Don’t build

Less houses- more play areas

Ring fencing for locals. Need for adequate parking

Less houses with enough parking residents and visitors

A/H

X Too many

As families expand- 3/4 beds needed

X Acerbating traffic congestion

X Dangerous stretch outside Pynes Farm- hill speed, parking opposite

Traffic calming/ double yellow lines

Storm water problems

Bit tight on space- any pavements?

No 4-beds needed, more 2-beds and more parking

More parking

Foul and water drainage problem- perhaps a storm lagoon uphill of railway culvet and scheme might need its own sewage treatment plant

Improve entrance/exit.

Could provide green spaces/ gardens from fields east and south of scheme

Possible connection to village car park

22 comments – 11 regarding traffic & parking / 2 drainage / 2 adverse comments / 4 number & type of houses.

Question 4. Were the scheme to go ahead, what, in your opinion, would be the best number, mix and type of housing on this sight?

10 x 2 bed houses to help young people

Affordable for locals

Recreational use- Church commissioner’s commitment ti village

Good balance of high end and A/H

Less houses- 2/3 beds

Present plan ok

Good if 10 plus means CIL and gifting of land

11 houses- 2/3/4 bedrooms

Max 10- larger houses to complement village as at Otterton

Mix about right but Weir Meadow an important factor

Reasonable proportion of affordable/ 1st time purchasers

Should link to improved sports facilities

Still 13 but more 3-bed/ 1- 4bed/ local buyers

1-3 bed and 10 in total

If numbers 9 and 10 omitted then more flexibility on plot sizes of remaining unitsPossible redesign To create retirement village,or Rent to Buy scheme, all should have maximum energy efficiency

16 comments – 12 about type, number and affordable housing / 4 recreational facilities

Total of 65 people attended and there were 18 questioners returned – 25%

I have listed 74 responses

Yes = positive comment – 18 comments

X = negative comment – 10 comments

A/H mentioned 10 times and other related comments – 5 times

Meir Meadow/ leisure facilities – 10 times

Plot use varied between none, 10 – 13 houses, 7 comments favouring smaller number of houses

Parking – 8 mentions

appendix-21-ide-local-housing-needs-report-feb-2012-copy

15th August 2016

31st Meeting. Present. CB, PP, RWL, UMC, NCAB, Paul Weston and David Kiernan

Paul had previously circulated the draft plan for approval and Chris invited each member of the steering group to comment on any amendment that should be made. ( he and PP had made some initial changes prior to the meeting)

RWL queried interpretation of figures and %ages in 2.12 and these were explained by Paul and no change was made.

RWL asked about the “state of play” with the MUGA and the school playing field. The SG discussed whether the school field can still be allocated as recreational open space given the recent closure by the school governors due to some vandalism, dog mess, and insurance problems with out of hours use. It was thought that it should remain in the NP as it needs safeguarding for use in the future and the following sentence to be added to 6.5 “it is the ambition of the community to allow greater access to the school field out of hours” Also the final sentence in para 2.24 should be deleted. (As far as the MUGA is concerned there have been no bookings for a year)

NCAB asked if a definition of sustainable development should be put in the glossary. David said that we should use the NPPF/ TDC one.

NCAB also queried the wording or figures in paras 1.8, 2.2, 2.11, 2.20 and 2.28 and these would be amended accordingly

UMC felt that paras 2.4/2.5 were very similar and it was decided that she and CB would rewrite them.

With these done, Paul moved that we should now say that we have accepted it and it is ready to share with the community. This informal consultation should take place AFTER the 8th Sept when a special meeting of the Parish Council is being held to discuss the proposed Pynes Farm Development, since changes will need to be made to the NP and it may be necessary to write in a further policy.

Possible elements for a questionnaire on the proposed development were discussed and included 1) the principle behind the plan for 13 houses on the site, 2) What do you think about the current proposal? 3) What do you think about the design and layout of the houses- how could it be improved? 4) What do you feel the mix and type of dwelling should be? 5) What is missing from the current proposal? 6) How can it benefit the village?

A meeting was arranged for Weds 28th Sept at 10.30 at 1 Pynes Cottages to talk through the feedback and to make appropriate amendments to the housing section and to arrange a date to present the draft plan to the community in the Hall and also by using the village website and hard copies of the plan at strategic locations in the village.

13th July 2016

30th Meeting. CB, PP, PW, RL, DK.

We reviewed some of the responses to areas needing consultation.

Traffic. PP & RL surveyed traffic problems encountered by services using High St. and Fore St. appendix18-traffic-consultation-bus-and-refuse

Recent planning applications. PP was emailed in response to request for recent new dwellings in Ide – 8 new dwellings completed between 1/4/2006 – 31/3/16 and approval for 7 within the same period (4 of these completed and 3 unimplemented) We also received a list of applications since 2000. appendix-19-ide-applications-since-2000-reviewed

School field. PP consulted Devon CC who suggested that it would be preferable not to include any school land within any Green or Recreational Space policy. to ensure future flexibility for the school.

DK agreed to compile a green space / recreational space map for consultation.

CB emailed Deloittes, the Church Commissioner’s solicitors outlining protection for the victorian orchard. appendix-20-victorian-orchard-letter-to-deloittes-copy

15th June 2016

29th Meeting. Present. CB, PP, PW. DK. NB.

Prior to the meeting, CB was asked by PW to provide information for the consultation Draft Plan. appendix17 Also PW asked DK to look into any recent assessment of sports and recreational spaces in Ide Parish by TDC to which DK replied that there is out of date information but that there is an emerging Play and Pitch strategy and Open Space Needs Assessment but that this is only at the briefing stage.

At the meeting we were presented with the first consultation draft of the neighbourhood plan by Paul Weston, who had used the basic structure and much of the content of the Steering Group’s first efforts. This draft had been greatly expanded and contained many key areas that needed to be addressed over the coming months, in particular analysing our consultation in July 2014, promoting further consultation in relation to our key policies.

As a result, CB and PP met on 20th June to analyse the July 2014 feedback in order to present it in a meaningful way with numbers of responses and percentages of the different opinions.

The Parish council also needs to obtain a Public Section Mapping Agreement regarding our future use of OS Maps. (The licence number was duly obtained.)

We also discussed

11th May 2016

28th Meeting. Present: Chris Bishop, Peter Pattison, Roger Luscombe, Sue Cloke, Paul Weston and David Kiernan.

We were pleased to welcome David Kiernan, newly appointed to TDC and presently overseeing 10 Neighbourhood Plans.

Chris gave a brief overview to David before confirming that our grant application had been successful, with £5,747 having been awarded to be spent within 6 months. Most of this money will be to pay Paul for his services with the balance going towards printing, photocopying, stationery and hall hire costs. Further funding is available up to a value of £9000.

Paul has drawn up a first draft of the Policies which the committee had originally produced, increasing the number of policies from 3 to 4. These are 1) Housing, 2) Car Parking, 3) Recreational areas and 4) Green spaces. There was much discussion as to the content and form of each of these potential policies and there is still a good deal of refining to be done before they are ready for another public consultation. Paul stressed that justifying these policies is harder than writing them and we need to work thoroughly and carefully on the evidence requirement and produce a “shopping list” for the policies. Chris and Peter have already met to quantify the evidence collected at the first village consultation and a further meeting is planned to review what further evidence is required and where it can be gathered from.

11th April 2016

27th Meeting. Our consultant, Paul, explained his review of what we have done so far and clarified what work we need to do for next steps.

He produced a Draft Plan analysis that showed where we need to do work and or polish up our submissions

Chris outlined what information and views we had obtained previously and Paul commented that we need to refine our policy submission. Paul suggested that our policy approach be divided into just four policy submissions:-

IDE 1 – Development

Paul advised that we need not allocate any particular sites as this may give better flexibility later.

We need to add evidence of community demands and views on development. Need to sort out public reaction and firm it into clear categories.

IDE 2 – Car Parking

We need to :

appraise potential site(s).

seek and analyse local views.

discuss with land owner(s).

establish community agreement as “designated” as this would take precedence in

future planning considerations.

review consultation results and analyse.

IDE 3 – Recreational Space (Weir Meadow etc).

Any designated space must meet the criteria and should also be agreed by the parish council.

IDE 4 (new policy) – Green Spaces (Coronation Gardens, Victorian Orchard, footpaths and village green).

Designated spaces must meet the criteria and be agreed by the parish council. • need to inform/consult land owner(s).

review consultation results and analyse.

We decide that the first step was to produce a ‘Call for Sitesand Sue Cloke agreed to draft this document with help from some templates, this document to be published in Mays Ide Times and posted on the Parish Notice Board in the Coronation Gardens.

Appendix 16.Call for sites ..

11th March 2016

26th Meeting. In the interim time, 2 Neighbourhood Plan committees had been consulted and based on their advice, the meeting was held in order to introduce ourselves to Paul Weston as a potential guide to helping us complete the Neighbourhood Plan.

Paul is a Town Planner by training, has worked in Local Government, and since the 1980s has worked in the community sector, especially with inner city communities in Manchester and Sheffield, setting up Community and development trusts. Since moving to the S.W. he has worked with Locality since its inception. He is a committed “grass-roots planner.

He had had a look at our plan and produced a paper which we discussed in more detail. He stressed that the N.P. is a legal document and that we would need to do quite a lot of work to rewrite policies in policy-speak, produce more supporting evidence and be more specific. He questioned the fact that we only had 3 policies and asked how much had been shared with the community and TDC.

He set out 8 steps for the task ahead and Roger asked what time scale we were working towards. Paul thought that we could finish it within 6-7 months if we were to employ him and if we had monthly regular meetings. He also set out his consultants role and a project plan.

Link to the site plan:  CCE Pynes Farm Site Plan