Presentation on theme: "An uncomfortable truth the story of the East Meon Neighbourhood Plan 1. Do we want large developments on the periphery of our Village? 2. Do we need a."— Presentation transcript:
An uncomfortable truth the story of the East Meon Neighbourhood Plan 1. Do we want large developments on the periphery of our Village? 2. Do we need a Neighbourhood Plan? 3. Is the village being rail-roaded?
There is no logical reason to propose any of the large sites According to East Meon Neighbourhood Plan Group: Your Village Your Plan, states: "It will help us to protect the character of East Meon and the surrounding countryside from unwelcome development" EMNPG team mtg minutes 20/11/14 states “Team was reminded of the guiding principles for the plan based on feedback from the village: No extension of the village boundaries....” All the large sites are outside the settlement boundary The threat to the village is coming from our own EMNPG
At the outset EMNPG should have agreed the criteria for new sites These criteria could have included: No new development outside the settlement boundary Brownfield & in-fill sites should be given priority No adverse impact on National Park landscape No urbanisation The criteria should then have been agreed by the community Then, and only then, should sites (that met these criteria) have been sought. This would have avoided undue anxiety in the village
The Sites identified on the Location Map have caused widespread distress The review form promoted divisive beggar-thy-neighbour by asking for “preferred sites”. Despite not being allowed “no new homes” this was the 2 nd most popular choice Up to 71 new houses Yellow areas are those in which there are residents most affected by the plan Up to 64 new homes
National Park local plan guidance East Meon is a Tier 4 village... Development on brownfield & other sites within the existing built-up area /settlement boundary will normally be allowed. - Housing development will be for affordable and local housing needs only. Unless reviewed through Neighbourhood Plans, current settlement boundaries will be incorporated into the Local Plan unchanged.
National Park Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Landscape and access paramount Only Glebe Strip and Radian sites recommended (in green)
The approach by EMNPG is risky Notification of these sites to the National Park was not sanctioned by the village NP process The National Park is now obliged to assess these sites and if any are found viable, the developers could take advantage. If the National Park was desperate for sites to meet their allocation then they could look to us to solve a problem All the sites suggested are now in the public domain If other villages with the same constraints see that we have sites that the village consider as reasonable candidates, why should they put forward unreasonable ones? We as a village should have decided first and then notified those sites to the National Park
Large site summary All 51 (excl Radian) outside settlement boundary Any EMNP with one large site will not have the backing of the whole community and will defeat the logic of the plan... So we will build on these Sites to protect ourselves from developers and landowners who may see this as an opportunity to submit speculative planning applications! The only justification for a large site is that we won't have a viable neighbourhood plan without one. So do we actually need a neighbourhood plan at all?!
2. Do we need a NP? The Radian sites were rejected before so why is the Parish Council facilitating these and others? Normal organic developments will meet our allocation (TBD) over 15 years Other villages in the National Park do not have a NP eg Buriton, South Harting We are in a National Park and well protected by the authority (landscape/landscape/landscape!) The current planning process affords due scrutiny and process (and kept away from village amateurs) For the plan to work it needs full community support We need to demonstrate that our plan is better than having no plan
3.Are we being rail-roaded? Governance structure Parish Chairman, EMNPG Project Manager in Control. Rest compliant Same two in control supported by a married couple. Other three out-voted Same two losing control (many resignations), but rest of team do not have a vote! Parish Council EMNP Steering Committee EMNP Working Group
What about democracy? No opportunity to support or critique NP since inception in 2013 Any dissent characterised as divisive self-interest The steering group is not representative of the village National Park must support the EMNP Only the Parish Council can stop the plan The Parish Council do not feel accountable to the village – they would have preferred that there is no Parish Council election on May 7 th Now we have 20 candidates The election is YOUR opportunity to get an accountable PC and get back control of the NP
In conclusion, time for a Fresh Start The uncomfortable truth is that the threat to the village is coming from within The leadership are unapologetic for the strife they have caused, but now the village is awakening All the large development sites (which are outside the settlement boundary) and the Radian sites should be removed from the plan If we do have a Neighbourhood Plan it should: Have the broad support of the community Be better than not having one We now need to halt the plan and reset it i.e. – new Parish Council, new NP team, new governance, new plan