First of all we would like to thank the Forum for a very comprehensive document that covers all aspects and more in its proposals, however, The Village Trust does have a number of points to make.
Perhaps we can open by quoting from the Department for Communities & Local Government in their guide to neighbourhood Plans.
- A Neighbourhood Plan is about the uses and development of land. It should not promote less development than that identified in the development plan for the local area.
- Often the process of preparing a plan will highlight non- planning issues.
These would not form part of the statutory neighbourhood plan so should not be subject to the independent examination and referendum.
Wider community aspirations than those relating to development and use of land can be included in a neighbourhood plan, but actions dealing with non land use matters should be clearly identifiable. For example, set out in a companion document or annex
- A neighbourhood plan may deal with transport insofar as it relates to new development. It may not deal with things like traffic management of existing networks, unless such management would be necessary to allow development to be approved.
Taking these guidelines into consideration it would appear that Chapters 10 (Getting Around), 12 (The Built and Natural Environment), and 13 (Historic Titchfield) fall outside the plans remit, and certainly outside the referendums terms of reference.
Concentrating then on the planning and development.
Our major concern is over paragraph 9.3. This paraphrases the report you commissioned from AECOM which arrived at a figure of 262 dwellings to be built within the Neighbourhood Plan area. Taking into account the Coach and Horses site, The Mitie site, The East St Garage site and the 86 dwellings on the retirement village site off Cartwright Drive this would leave 153 dwellings to be built within the plan period of 16 years. You also state this in your summary para 1.2 “During the lifetime of the plan an average of 10 dwellings a year will be needed”
One does need to raise the question if 10 aren’t built in year 1 does that mean 20 in year 2 etc.etc. until you reach 153 ?
We do note that you state in para 9.6 you are not specifying any sites within this plan.
If these paragraphs remain in the plan they will, if the referendum votes yes, form a central part of the local plan that affects Titchfield and we are certain that developers will notice this and they, as they are already doing, will inevitably identify sites.
As things stand within the current draft local plan Fareham has “NO development” planned for Titchfield. You even quote their 2036 plan “Titchfield is a small settlement, with a rich historic character and a thriving local centre. Few development opportunities have been identified, apart from small infilling proposals”
You also quote their own Core strategy and Policy CS22 which creates the strategic Meon Gap, which means that proposals for development will not be permitted.
If you are proposing “no development” then surely there is no necessity to hold a referendum on something that is already being proposed by FBC.
At the moment the National Planning Policy Framework states :
Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period. Within this overall requirement, strategic policies should also set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations
Once the strategic policies have been adopted, these figures should not need retesting at the neighbourhood plan examination, unless there has been a significant change in circumstances that affects the requirement
Fareham have already decided no development within the Neighbourhood Plan area but have been told by the government they will have to increase their current allocation. The Village Trust Committee do not believe that they should, or in fact will, go back on their commitment to Titchfield. You do, however, seem to be saying there needs to be development.
The Trust fundamentally disagrees.
A few other points outside the referendum agenda but included in the Plan:
Para 4.2 :
It was the Village Trust that asked the Neighbourhood Forum to cease being a sub-committee. Fareham Borough Council, were asking us to alter our constitution in order to fit the Neighbourhood Forum regulations. We felt, more than anything else, we had to remain independent from both local and national government so asked the Forum to leave and go their own way.
“The growth of car ownership has not been offset by any significant increase in parking facilities”
We helped campaign for the new parking arrangements in the community centre after 2 traffic surveys carried out by FBC resulting in an extra 30 spaces, this would seem to us ‘significant’
”In later years, the Barn was again abandoned and was acquired by FBC in conjunction with the surrounding land”
No. The Barn was owned by Millan Mandaric Holdings and was first leased to The Titchfield Festival Theatre and then sold to them.
The surrounding land, now the new country park, was given to FBC as a gift, being part of the Retirement Village development deal. Something the Village Trust were involved with, and helped bring to fruition, from the start.