NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVIEW
Steering Group Review Meeting No 07
19.00 hrs, Monday 15th October 2018
Council Chamber, Community Pavilion
Present: CPC Planning Committee, Lynn Lloyd, Brian Fagan, Roy Page, Keerpa and Ricardo from SODC, Liz Folley, Jo Wills
Keerpa and Ricardo spoke to the committee regarding the recently updated Ministerial Statement.
The Ministerial statement announces that a 3 year land supply must be identified. SODC have announced they have more than a 5 year land supply.
For the Chinnor Neighbourhood Plan review this means that the emergency to get allocated sites identified is over – but it is still recommended that the review continue and allocated sites be added to the plan.
A number of questions were asked regarding the review:
- It was agreed that the traffic light colour system could be removed and only the wording remain if the committee agree this is the best route.
- It was suggested that possible reserve sites could be included in the review, if the committee wish.
- The recently completed traffic survey could be included if the committee wish for it to be – but it is not a specific requirement.
A number of questions were asked following the Plan being used in recent appeal situations:
- The need to be more specific about the infill policy is not required.
- The Plan held fast during the recent appeal which everyone was very pleased about.
- Sadly 1 appeal was lost for 7 dwellings and this was over the infill and boundary issues – the Secretary of State is unable to help question the decision but SODC do suggest always asking the MP for assistance in these matters.
The CNHP Committee to arrange a committee meeting date soon and progress the plan review forward.
Sign ______________________________________ Date ______________
BTW you say "SODC have announced they have more than a 5 year land supply." However, didn't the appellants claim that SODC didn't even have a 3 year supply? The appeal decision might clarify
4 of 4
Reasons could include inadequate infrastructure, doctors and pharmacy already under severe strain, local roads unable to take additional traffic, a pathetic lack of public transport, etc
3 of 4
Might it not be better to simply state that no additional sites have been identified for developemnt and give reasons why?
2 of 4
Would this not give a developer an excuse to make a planning application for that site. After all, it would have been identified as suitable for development!
Sorry, stupid limitation of 200 characters means this is 1 of 4
I am very concerned regarding the suggestion that "... that possible reserve sites could be included in the review ...".