Minutes of the Longparish Housing Group Meeting

3 December 2006

Attendance:  Mike Johnson (Chair), Jeremy Barber, Mary Jo Darrah, Catherine Sweet, Fiona Gould, Cheryl Dowler, Trevor Bettell

(Observer?): Phil Harris

Apologies:  none

It was agreed that henceforward formal minutes would be taken of meetings and published on the website.

1. Data Protection Registration

Fiona Gould raised the issue of registering the Group for data protection reasons, now that we were in possession of villagers' comments regarding the affordable housing initiative. Documentation and a preliminary registration number had been received. It was agreed that this was prudent.

ACTION: Fiona to complete application. 

2. Costs

The Housing Group members had incurred minor costs relating to the printing of the exhibition leaflet, and the data protection registration would also incur a small cost. Jeremy Barber reported that the Parish Council had set aside a budget of £3k for implementing the Longparish Parish Plan.

ACTION: The Group agreed that it would be sensible to seek the Parish Council's approval for future expenditure, particularly relating to the Open Forum (see below), which was seen by all concerned as a crucial element of the consultation process.

3. 28 November Exhibition Wash-up

At the November parish council meeting Mike had offered space at the exhibition to the authors of a flyer raising concerns about the affordable housing proposals.  This was followed up by a letter which also included an invitation to meet at any time.  The authors had decided not to take up the invitation to the exhibition and a response was awaited to the invitation to meet.

The Housing Group thanked Fiona Gould for her leadership in pulling together the materials for the exhibition, and to David Gould for getting the materials onto the website so promptly afterwards.

ACTION: A letter of thanks would be written by Mike Johnson to the TVBC Housing staff who had attended to answer questions. The letter would also seek their feedback from the Exhibition and information about the current breakdown of existing Testway housing in the village.

The exhibition had been well attended; the afternoon session had attracted over 65XX visitors, and for the evening session, another Xxover 103. YY w34 ritten comment sheets had been received at the Exhibition. A further Y6 responses to the leaflets had been collected from the boxes in the pubs and the shop.  

ACTION: It was agreed that Fiona Gould would “anonymise” the comments to protect privacy, so that they could be published on the website. This will help communicate the full range of responses from villagers to the principles of a new development. It was agreed that transparency was important. A number of letters have also been received and they will also be published when we have checked that the writers are happy for their thoughts to be made public.

ACTION: Mary Jo to draft a response to Tony Holmes' open letter.

The Group discussed the comments and general reaction of villagers over the past few weeks. In the light of numerous supportive comments, the group decided that they would continue to promote the idea of affordable housing for the village.  There were roughly four main question areas that needed to be answered to villagers' satisfaction:

•  Scale:
  •  How big would the proposed development be? Can we really keep it “modest”?
•  Control:
  •  How can we ensure that the affordable housing being built will remain social housing, and not be subject to some future right to buy, requiring more social housing to be built?
  •  What was “shared ownership” and would this mean that the new homes would be taken out of circulation, and lead to new units being built to meet demand?  How can we control that the houses remain affordable on a change of owner of the shared equity?
  •  Can we control any future development, or will this become “the thin edge of the wedge”?
•  Need
  •  Is there sufficient “need” from people with a village connection? Was the way need was measured last year “acceptable”?
  •  What is currently available in the village in terms of social housing?
  •  Can we guarantee that the affordable housing will be taken up by Longparish people, and not involve “incomers”?
•  Site(s)
  •  Have all possible suitable sites been identified?
  •  Can we ensure that the site(s) chosen will not impact on the character of the village and the open spaces that are valued?

ACTION: The Group agreed to focus future communication efforts on answering these issues. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) would be amended and added to on the website, and a hard copy of the exhibition materials and website materials would be printed off by the Goulds and put into a file available at the shop.

The Group also discussed two other issues- how community support for the proposed development would be “measured”, and how the Group's communications could be made even more transparent.  The decision to record minutes and publish them is one aspect of this commitment.

4. Meetings with Experts- TVBC Planning and Housing, 29 Nov

Five(?) of the Group members had attended a meeting with TVBC Planning Officers Maddy Winter (Head of Planning)  Steve Lees and Graham Smith and Housing Officers Alison Whitehead and Pat BrooksMandy Brown to discuss a number of the above issues.  

The TVBC officers advised that some concerns had been raised about two of the three initial sites were no longer in consideration, due to road access and tree issues. This tied in with comments in the previous day's exhibition.  In addition the group reported concerns raised about drainage on the Zurich site.  The Group passed over the map from the exhibition with villagers' input on alternative sites, and asked for a speedy response on the sites identified by green dots at the exhibition and on the 3 sites initially identified. Steve Lees warned that exploring alternatives needed to be treated carefully, as this could stall forward progress. He would be discussing alternative sites with landowners.

He advised the Group about how the negotiations would be taken forward. TVBC would be the principal in initial discussions with landowners, to ensure that the terms of ESN06 were applied, in particular, that no landowner would benefit no more than was necessary from the policy. The two planningTVBC officers and the Housing Group recommended that the size of the proposed development be limited to no more than 12 units of affordable housing, and that the number of open market houses could be adjusted downwards from six to reflect the funding needs of the community benefit. TVBC has therefore backed the Housing Group's assertion that NO MORE than six open market houses would be involved, and there would likely be fewer than six needed. Limiting the number to 12 compared with the CAH figure of 23 This was also seen by the Planning TVBC Officers as the best way of ensuring that the affordable homes were taken up by those on the housing register with a Longparish connection.

ACTION: The Housing Group agreed that on the basis of this advice, we will formally drop the proposal for a “two phase” approach, and propose a development of one phase, with 12 affordable homes and whatever number of six or below open market houses that were needed to deliver the affordable homes and the community benefits. This was seen as important to meet concerns about the size and scale of the proposed development. The Housing Group also agreed to provide TVBC with specific written information about both the principles that Longparish expected to be followed in any negotiations with landowners. The Housing Group agreed to specify the community benefits (in priority order) that would be required, based on the Longparish Parish Plan and input from the Exhibition. Once initial discussions with landowners had been conducted and proposed site(s) were actually identified, then Housing Group would resume its direct role.

ACTION: Steve had given some explanations of the sort of return a builder might expect when building affordable housing and the implications for landowners of the inclusion of commercial units under ESN06.  The group agreed that we needed clarification on this issue.  Mike will seek it from Steve.

The TVBC officers advised the Housing Group members on a number of issues raised by villagers. In particular, on the issue of housing need, their advice was that the need had been demonstrated in line with national policy. The Housing Needs survey conducted last August complied with nationally agreed procedures and that its questions were approved by the Government (DEFRA), and so the findings were not in doubt. Pat Brooks provided a helpful breakdown of the existing Longparish entries on the housing register which is appended to these minutes {Mike - do you want me to scan?]

When it came to the issue of demonstrating village support for the development, the Housing Group asked the officers who would be making the decision that the requirement of ESN06 for community support had been demonstrated, and what criteria would be applied. The Officers replied that their statutory planning responsibilities meant that TVBC is required to be the final arbiter of community support. They will take into account all representations made and the consultation processes followed by Longparish. They encouraged the village to follow as open a process as possible, encouraging a rigorous debate. The Exhibition and the proposed Open Forum were seen as good examples of this.

ACTION: The Housing Group agreed to make this process of measuring community support clear in its report to the Parish Council, and to ensure that the process of consultation is as wide and engaging of all villagers as possible. The planning process would be followed as required, and representations could be made by all who had an opinion on the proposed development.

5. Next Steps

ACTION: The Housing Group members agreed to draft and publish a set of principles which would be sent to TVBC, to inform any initial discussions with landowners. The Group will also produce a prioritised Community Gain “wish list”, based on the Parish Plan and subsequent input received from the Exhibition and individual representations. Important new points were whether we might be able to gain a village green to provide a focus for the village and protection from further development and the possibility of including a multi-purpose building which could be used as a house but which could readily be converted to a building for general community benefit, such as a shop, should the need arise.  This would also be sent to TVBC Planning officers. This list could NOT be seen as “definitive” in the absence of specific sites being known, but would be the basis of further consultation with villagers, the Parish Council and landowners.

ACTION: Mike Johnson agreed to report on the above to the next Parish Council, as a separate agenda item. The written report will be posted on the website by the Goulds, and an edited version done by Catherine Sweet for a Hill & Valley article.

ACTION: The Housing Group agreed to develop the Open Forum as an opportunity to provide more information to villagers, and to bring together a panel of experts for a meeting run in a “question time” format. The Group agreed that this would be moderated best by an independent, authoritative chair, who should be drawn from outside of the village.  A date in late January or early February would be sought by which time more information about the potential site(s) might be available.

ACTION: The Group agreed to encourage comments and responses in writing, and to advise those who submit them that they will be published on the website and communicated to TVBC as part of the consultation process.  The only caveat that will be exercised is that the published comments must conform to the advertising standards of being “legal, decent, honest and truthful” and do not fall foul of libel, defamation etc.  Correspondence already received would be published, subject to the agreement of the correspondents.

ACTION: Mike will arrange the next meeting in the week commencing 12 December.