The DRAFT Plan is published

NP 4 Website  25 July 2018

The DRAFT Plan is published and your comments are invited. The consultation period is from 20th July until 10th September 2018.

You can comment at the public consultation meetings or by going to the Have Your Say page on this website or you can use the comment facility at the foot of this page.  Or you can comment in writing and hand your letter to any Forum member.

 

 

 

 

19 thoughts on “The DRAFT Plan is published

  1. Peter Wheal Post author

    Peter, This may help with your query

    https://www.planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/improve-where-you-live/shape-your-local-area/neighbourhood-plans/step-8-referendum-and-adoption

    Here’s part of what it says
    Referendum
    Assuming that the examiner recommends that your draft Neighbourhood Plan can proceed then your local planning authority will organise and pay for a referendum. The rules for the referendum are set out in the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations. The question that the referendum has to ask is: “Do you want [insert name of local planning authority] to use the neighbourhood plan for [insert name of neighbourhood plan area] to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?”

    Anybody registered to vote in the area covered by your Neighbourhood Plan will be entitled to vote. A simple majority of votes (over 50% of those voting) in favour of your Neighbourhood Plan is sufficient for it to succeed.

    The only exception is in Business Areas where two separate referenda will be held in parallel. The first will be for residents and a second referendum will be held for businesses (or more specifically non-domestic rate payers). Each business will have one vote. In this instance the outcome of the business and residents’ referenda will be considered separately. If both are in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan it will be adopted. If both reject the Neighbourhood Plan it won’t be adopted. Where the two outcomes conflict with each other the decision about whether or not to adopt the Neighbourhood Plan will rest with the local planning authority.

    Also here is the response from FBC:

    In terms of the Neighbourhood Plan process there is normally only one referendum. If a Neighbourhood Plan area is designated as a business area then there would be two. The Titchfield Neighbourhood Plan area is not a designated business area.
    Fareham Borough Council

  2. Peter Swan

    I am becoming concerned about the eligibility to vote in the forthcoming referendum on the proposed Forum plan. In the papers that I have seen it refers only to the residents within the quasi boundary, proposed but not authenticated.
    I query on behalf of the traders, companies and businesses that operate within this area. Surely all the owners and employees of the tanneries and the other businesses within the area are entitled to a vote.
    They work, contribute and park in the village. Without them Titchfield would be a ghost town..

  3. ann

    Mike Ferris:
    There has been over 200 Neighbourhood Plans approved to date. This is on top of more than 1,900 communities across England – covering nearly 10 million people – that have now also started to get their own plans in place.
    Housing and Planning Minister, Brandon Lewis, said:
    “By giving communities new powers we have removed the outdated system which often saw local areas pitted against developers. It is clear that more and more people are getting involved with determining how the future of their area will evolve for future generations.”
    Fareham Borough Council has been provided with funding from national government to support the work on the Neighbourhood Plan and to pay for the referendum.

  4. Mike Ferris

    Having now seen the response to my misgivings regarding the eligibility for voting in the proposed referendum, I remain unconvinced that the NP truly represents the view of the 7280 residents of the parish.
    The village is the centre of this community of over 7000 residents but only 2200, (30.2%) of them are eligible to vote.
    The forum which consists of 20% Titchfield born members and 80% more recent incoming residents, therefore only represents 30.2% of the total parish residents and questions must be asked regarding whether the views reflected within the NP are truly representative of the village as a whole or just those of the 30.2%.
    How can such a low percentage of the total population represent the overall view of the whole population or is it indicative of protectionist nimbyism?
    The low sampling revealed in the surveys does little to convince the veracity of the results which again leave questions regarding their value in preparing the plan.

    With further reference to the expenditure of public funds in producing this plan I note that the cost of holding the restricted referendum for the minority of the village residents is to be borne by the tax paying residents of Fareham Borough as a whole,
    I remain unconvinced that they are getting value for money and that the undermining by duplication of much of the TVT’s continuing excellent work on behalf of the overall community is either necessary or can be justified.

  5. S Evans

    Thanks for the clarification on the Boundary.
    Re. the housing questionnaire, I’m quoting figures stated on Appendix 7 – Report on Housing Questionnaire quoted on the plan. It states “250 Housing Questionnaires were distributed at the Village Fete, over the internet and via doorstep deliveries. A total of 32 completed questionnaires were returned.”. So 1.5% of residents in scope based on the boundary confirmation.

    If I’m interpreting this wrongly, please correct me.

    And re. the “vote”. Would I be correct in saying that if only 3 votes in total are received, 2 for, 1 against, the plan passes? Is there a minimal total vote amount required (e.g. at least 20% of those in scope to vote) in order for this vote to stand?

  6. ann

    Reply to S Evans
    No changes will be made to the Draft plan until after the end of the consultation period on 10th September. All suggestions/comments/advice will then be considered by the Forum and amendments will be made to the plan accordingly.

    There is, however, some confusion regarding numbers. The population of the Boundary Plan Area ie residents entitled to vote, is approximately 2200 and NOT over 7000 which is the number in the ward area. Similarly, the number who took part in the housing survey was certainly greater than the 32 that you intimate but as I said before, all these apparent anomalies and your other comments will be thoroughly investigated after 10th September. before the Plan is submitted to FBC. A revised version of the Plan will then be posted on the website.

  7. S Evans

    Before my feedback below, I have no affiliation to the NP, TVT or any other group but agree with comments/questions adde by Mr Burner. I live here with my family and enjoy being in this area. The NP has put in a lot of work on this and their efforts show in the plan. They should be commended. But as I digest this plan more and more, I’m struggling to see a reason to vote for this. My feedback as follows:

    1) There are still many mistakes on the report published here (e.g.H5 & H6 are still mentioned. Policy H1 references Map 3 on page 5 which is the Foreward to the document). Please perform an urgent proof read and correct this document.
    2) If I intepret Map 4 correctly, it is proposed the Urban Settlement boundary change encroches the Strategic gap. Is this correct? If so, your policies should reject this proposal.
    3) The results of the housing survey completed by 32 people (out of an approximate population in the ward of approx 7280 (Census 2011)) determined that “residents have a strong preference for ‘affordable to buy’ and ‘social housing’. That means 0.3% of the area population determined this “strong preference” by residents. This should be made very clear on the report as I feel this to be misleading.
    4) As said before, not specifing sites appears to me to be a significant risk to the area, leaving any site in the NP open to development. Holes in this plan and the Local Plan will be found.
    5) Policy H.4 item b) Uses local materials, building methods. – Local materials from where? Local building methods – what are these? Surely these statements contradicts with the provision of “affordable housing”.
    6) Cycling and footpaths. If the proposal is to look at a safe cycle route via Posbrook Lane, what is the exact NP suggestion? I saw reference to having a dedicated lane but that would mean widening the road, opening it up to more traffic but also, extremly expensive to do (and thus almost certainly will never happen). There is an oppotunity to widen the canal path that is cheaper, safer and opens the path up SAFELY to cyclists, push chairs and the disabled. I find it astonishing that the NP has not considered this or similar solutions successfully implemented across the country but falls back on a solution that appears cost prohibative and unlikely to ever happen. In Task T.2.1 you even reference “for the benefit of walkers” but I see little or no thought/consideration/policy/action for those that cannot walk. The audit report higlights this but no actions are on the plan.
    7) The NP Survey Results of Feb 2016 returned 152, again out of a populace of approx 7280 (approx 2% of the ward). 23% were under 16. 14% were aged 22-50. Again, I’m struggling to see the value that can be extracted from these results.

    The overal intention of the policy is a positive one – maintain the village and its surroundings, build in the urban boundary with in fill – which I concur with but this plan as it stands would struggle to do this.

  8. ann

    Response to Phil Burner/Peter Swan
    ALL comments, good or bad are being typed up/copied from website and will be sent to FBC with our submission AND posted on the website.
    The posts on the website are not being restricted in any way unless they are anonymous, malicious or relate to issues not relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan
    Only the residents who live in the Boundary Plan area – approved by the residents – will be entitled to vote at referendum stage see below and also the document mentioned to Peter Swan in his first post
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/neighbourhood-planning item 9
    See also: https://www.planninghelp – Campaign from the Protection of Rural England
    Referendum
    Assuming that the examiner recommends that your draft Neighbourhood Plan can proceed then your local planning authority will organise and pay for a referendum. The rules for the referendum are set out in the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations. The question that the referendum has to ask is: “Do you want [insert name of local planning authority] to use the neighbourhood plan for [insert name of neighbourhood plan area] to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?”
    Anybody registered to vote in the area covered by your Neighbourhood Plan will be entitled to vote. A simple majority of votes (over 50% of those voting) in favour of your Neighbourhood Plan is sufficient for it to succeed.

  9. Phil Burner

    Following the publication of the Draft Plan I have a number of question which I think should be made clear.

    1) On the recently published Forum poster it says…
    ‘You can comment on our website http://www.titchfieldmatters.org.uk
    or leave a note in the box in Daisey B’s
    or talk to someone at an open meeting
    WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS  BY 10th September so we can make any changes before submitting the Plan to FBC and the Government Inspector.’

    It is not clear what will actually happen to ALL the comments. Will those not in support of the plan be passed on to the Government Inspector?

    2) Are comments on the Forum website being censored.
    Should not the Forum be a place to debate not only aspects of the Neighbourhood Plan itself but also its relevance?
    I’m concerned that the online debate could be restricted to just the former.

    3) Who will be able to vote?

    Following on from the Forum thread started by John Hiett Mike Ferris makes a very valid point, he says, in essence, who will be eligible to vote for the plan, residents of the Ancient Parish of Titchfield, residents of the current (church) Parish, residents of the Conservation Areas, residents of FBC’s Titchfield Ward or just residents within the designated Neighbourhood Plan area. All different in size and make-up. It needs to be made clear who can vote.

  10. S Evans

    A poster was already published on Facebook on Thursday. I assumed this was by a Forum member. So far no comments…
    This site is very niche and not very well advertised (obviously recently on the flyer drop). I would have expected a far wider scope for the comms plan on this subject, especially as it will lead to a majority public vote. I will be sending my questions on this to FBC as I really don’t understand the reluctance to make a big thing about this so maybe they should step in. It’s our home and it’s important.

    Mr Wood – respectfully, this Site is an unsecured Electronic Communications tool which you are using with no guarantees of data security. Others do not feel the same as you and all the good work done to build this plan would reach far more people. BUT, the decision has been made which I respect so will not push it further.

  11. ann

    We have decided not to pursue a discussion via Facebook after all. We have however, asked for a poster giving details of the Open Meetings to be published.

  12. Graham Wood

    I have been attempting to advise (even my own family!) – the dangers of Electronic Communications!
    Neither I or others ‘close’ will not touch them.
    Any military or ex military will know these dangers, so please do not place our Forum on it, if so many will disappear.

  13. Graham Wood

    At the Forum meeting last week I found it rather sad to listen to a gentleman from the Garson area discussing his problems of parking (another bullet point for TVT as well). There appears to be little our council can do, so they say, yet I know good friends in the Chandlers Ford area who have solved this issue.
    After much deliberation between residents and their council, a Single Yellow Line with signage “No Parking between 10-11 AM &14-1500 PM” – a miracle! It worked immediately and has remained so now for over 4 years. You see the difference between Double Yellows & Singles is: Doubles are administered and under the control of the police, whereas Singles are the responsibility of local authorities. Simple, cheap and very effective.

  14. ann

    Thank you for details of the Facebook page, someone is putting up details today. yes, we did have a Titchfield Matters Facebook page but due to the sickness of the originator, this did not take off. The Phil Burner site I mentioned is actually a website and details have been sent requesting he up load them.

    Our housing expert is on holiday until 8th August so I will ask him to respond to your other 2 comment on his return.

  15. S Evans

    I would expect to see this on the Voice 4 Titchfield group (as it’s the most popular group for the village with 2000+ members) but I thought you had a group already – Titchfield Matters. It states it supports this forum but with 33 members and no posts all year, I’d stick with the Voice 4 group. I’m not aware of a group run by Phil Burner.

    Not sure of the rational on removing policies H.5 and H.6. Just by description, they sound like crucial policies we would need, especially if brownfield site usage is to be encouraged (as was described on page 30 – Community consultation showed a preference for new development to be on Brownfield sites as opposed to Greenfield sites). Plus, these policies are still referenced on page 31.

    I’m also don’t understand why the the Forum is not specifying sites. Surely we would be better protected from future development if we already had a location in our pocket to hand to developers when they come calling?

  16. ann

    Thank you for your considered comments. I am today preparing something to go on the only village Facebook I know which is run by Phil Burner. Are there others? if so, please would you let me know via this website.
    Regarding your comments on the summary, I will ask the executive committee to look at this again.
    As far as the two housing policies, H5 ad H6 are concerned, these should not have been on the index list. At a late stage the policies were in fact changed – well spotted though! They have now been removed.
    Ann Wheal,
    Chair, Titchfield Neighbourhood Forum

  17. S Evans

    Are you posting this on one of the Titchfield Facebook groups for feedback?
    I would make the summary much clearer in terms of clear actions that will be or proposed to be taken. I can also see reference to policies H.5 Smaller Dwellings and H.6 Brownfield sites in the index but no explanation of what these are in the document.

  18. Pat Shirley

    This looks like a very well put together plan but it is 61 pages, is there an executive summary for it please?

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.