THE STEERING GROUP MEETING NOTES

Meeting No. 4 – 29th August 2023 11:00am
East Clandon Village Hall

Attended: Greg Ganjou, James Culmer, Arthur Hunking, Chris Manning, Lesley Pitt and Jason Robertshaw.

From Guildford Borough Council Planning Dept – Ben Moye, Dan Knowles, Charlotte Smith

• The steering group welcomed the three guest speakers from Guildford BC Planning Dept who had agreed to come in to answer queries on the way forward with East Clandon’s Neighbourhood Plan.

• GG asked for and received everyone’s permission to audio record the meeting.

• We then had discussion with the three members of the GBC planning dept team on a range of planning matters relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan including:- What we can and can’t do, site allocation, previously developed land, village shop, Assets of community value, housing needs survey, traffic and parking, biodiversity, next stages, design codes, protecting green spaces, valued landscape and views, housing density, CIL and non-statutory aspirational policies (Neighbourhood Priority Statements).

  The main points being:-

  • The Neighbourhood Plan is concerned solely with land use and nothing else. Aspirational policies such as a wish for traffic calming or safer and better footpaths, may be included but will not form part of planning policy. Nothing in the NP can overwrite or cancel anything in the adopted local plan or national planning framework and should not conflict with other local designations like the AONB, Green Belt or conservation area and should not generally be categorically negative about development. DK also said that NPs were aiming to become more of a set of design guidelines complementing the local area.

  • A discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of allocating sites for development and affordable housing was had as it had been suggested previously that allocating sites could potentially protect the village from unwanted larger scale development. DK suggested this would not necessarily be the case and each planning application would be taken on its own merits. Furthermore, attempting to ‘limit’ development in this way would probably not be looked on favourably by an inspector. Indeed, any attempt to limit development could be problematic i.e.. Trying to enforce housing density less than the national guidelines or suggesting a percentage limit for development in the village. DK Suggested looking at Effingham’s policies for guidance.

  • Green space can be protected as long as it serves a special community purpose or special wildlife use. DK suggested that the ECPC may not want or need to designate its own land (pond, playground, common etc) as this would potentially limit future opportunities and it is already protected to a large extent by being owned by the Parish.

  • Assets of community value are outside of planning but can be identified in the NP but only last for 5 years and are for assets that may be under threat. They only give the residents time to try and raise capital to purchase the asset for themselves. Any loss to the owner during this extension would need to be paid for by the council.

  • Various things we could do to aid our evidence base were suggested.

    • A new Housing Needs Survey if we are contemplating allocating sites – the last one will soon be out of date. GBC has no plans to do new ones until the Local Plan is reviewed. We could complete a new assessment using various private consultants or Surrey Community Action Group. A possible way of estimating local housing needs would be to do a calculation using the Parishes population as a share of the entire borough’s population housing needs.

    • Land Availability Assessment

    • Data from St Thomas Housing Association – DK said he would look contact details up.

    • An updated conservation area appraisal. Setting out character of areas. What has changed since the last one in 1973 if anything? Maybe a local architect or someone with an interest in local buildings could help.

  • If we decide that a NP is not for us then a priority statement could be a substitute once the Levelling and Regeneration Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes law.

  • The NP is not required to address development at all. A series of design codes would be sufficient. One land use policy is all that is required.

  • The next stages were discussed:-

    • draft vision and plan,

    • then regulation 14 consultation (6 week consultation that we undertake with the parish).

    • We submit the draft plan to GBC who undertake another 6 week consultation internally on the suitability of the plan for examination.

    • Examination of the plan and GBC’s comments by independent examiner.

    • If the plan passes the test we will hold a local referendum on whether or not to adopt the plan.

• After Ben, Dan and Charlotte left the other agenda items were discussed

  • The Steering Group Terms of Reference and adding it to the website – all members have now agreed.

  • GG gave an update on funding progress

  • GG promised to send out the vision statement that has been worked on.

  • A discussion was had regarding potential previously developed land throughout the village and our ability to protect it.

  • It was felt that it was not advantageous to do a new housing needs survey and that we limit ourselves to a simple NP concentrating on policies regarding:-

    • Design codes according to area character appraisals

    • Off street Parking

    • Sustainability

    • Biodiversity / Wildlife corridor

    • Surface water drainage

    • Dark skies

    • Protected views

    • Support a village shop should someone want to open one