Information for the referendum on July 18th

18th July is the date for the referendum. We hope you will vote YES

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the Neighbourhood Plan so here on the website we are trying to put things right.

We have posted:

The Referendum Version of the Neighbourhood Plan, also available to read at Daisey B’s and the Queen’s Head
Summary of the External Examiner’s Report
A map showing the Boundary Plan of the NP area
Some thoughts from others about the Plan
A message from John Hiett, also included in the flyer shortly being sent to you

Plus The FBC timetable for the Referendum

6 thoughts on “Information for the referendum on July 18th

  1. Peter Wheal

    All the recommendations contained in the examiners report have been included in the Plan, many being cut-and pasted.

    I think there is some confusion regarding Policy H1 which I do not intend to discuss at this late stage of proceedings.

    I am surpised that you say there are the minor discrepancies between the Plan on the FBC website and our website. May I suggest that you use the FBC Plan.

  2. John Hiett

    Nick Girdler’s claims are simply not true. FBC has said that the Hambrook housing development will more than satisfy Titchfield’s housing needs. That means, Nick, that there is no residual housing need within the Titchfield Plan area. So if a developer tells the Planning a department that they would like to fulfil Titchfield’s housing needs, the Planning Dept of FBC will say “there is no housing need left in Titchfield. The housing need has already been satisfied”. go and buy a Boris bus and proclaim it louder. Your claim will still not be believed by the good people of Titchfield.

  3. S Evans

    Were ALL recommendations from the Inspectors report applied to the latest version of the NP? If not, can those excluded be added to the Summary of the External Examiner’s Report?

    I ask as regarding Policy H1, it’s clear from the report that this should have been renamed and the basic premise of it changed. I quote “Since I am recommending that policy H1 should no longer deal solely with windfall development and should be renamed, appropriate modifications should be made where the phrase “Policy H1, Windfall Development” appears”. The inspector goes on to say “All references in the Draft TNP to ‘Policy H1 Windfall Development’ should be modified to ‘Policy H1 Housing development’””.

    The reference “Policy H1 Windfall Development” still appears 5 times in the published version.

    It’s a key point of the H1 policy now that if windfall sites are not solely in scope or “not practicable” for development, greenfield sites are still potentially at risk. Any ambiguity with the term “windfall” should be removed from the plan.

    It also states October 2019 on the first page…?

    There also appears to be some minor differences between the plan published on FBC’s website and the one on here. Could these discrepancies be cleared up so we are 100% sure we know which version we are voting for?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.