Notes from meeting held with SODC officers – January 2021

Notes from meeting held with SODC officers via Zoom  28.1.2021 at 2.30pm

Present , members of KENDP steering group

 – SODC NDP team

  1. The requirement for smaller villages to meet a housing allocation has been removed in this version of the local plan.  There is now no requirement on smaller villages to allocate houses.  This has been replaced with support from SODC to smaller villages who are undertaking an NDP if they want to allocate a site.  This site should be an appropriate scale to the size of the village.
  2. Benefit of having a n allocation
    1. The benefits for the community of having a small allocation of smaller houses. There is an environmental impact this weighs against the impact of having new people in the village, indicators from surveys etc, this is not planning policy
    2. Para 14 in NPPF – relating to the local authority and 5year land supply. If there is an allocation then if the local authority doesn’t have a 5 year land supply and the district is open to speculative development, then a NDP area will only have to demonstrate a 3 year land supply if there is an allocation within the plan.  This benefit lasts for 2 years.  It has not been proven whether the one allocation will last for the 15 years of the local plan.  After 2 years the plan will need substantive changes to be able to have 2 more years of protection, whether there needs to be another allocation hasn’t been proven in an appeal to date.
    3. The risk of not having a 5 year land supply is when the plan is old. The current risk is Covid and will the number of houses being built reach the target.  Currently the LA has a 5 year land supply.
    4. There is a legal challenge on the local plan, as to whether is will achieve a sustainability test
  3. 5-10% – the understanding of SODC officers is that as previously agreed, that the 5-10% suggested allocation of housing increase is for the parish for Kidmore End. With the current number of houses that have been built since 2011 at 34, this equates to approx. 6%.  There is no need for the NDP to bring the increase to 10%, nor is there a need to explain organic growth, past or future.  In allocating a site with 3-4 houses, this is the right size for the village and appropriate in the NDP
  4. Infill – In the core strategy the policy on infill gave guidance on scale – 0.2hectares for small villages and 0.1 Hectare for “other villages”, this guidance has been removed from this LP. This change has been made so that the policy is more flexible, as smaller villages, covers a range of size of smaller villages.  The policy now uses the guidance of appropriate to its location.
    1. This policy also applies to redevelopment and backland
    2. Densities within the plan are now larger in section ??, so it would be appropriate to explain why a group is choosing a density, ie, it is appropriate to size of village, other nearby buildings, so important to have village characteristics. Also to look at the census 2011 and the number of houses.
    3. H16 applies to smaller villages and “other villages”, the scale would be smaller for “other villages” and open countryside settlements
    4. H!6 is smaller villages and “other villages” There isn’t a separate policy for “other villages” for infill
    5. H8 – is smaller villages,
    6. There isn’t an expectation number for infill development, it’s guided by H16
    7. H8 – smaller villages in NDP – also guided by supporting text, “other villages” can still be vulnerable, same as smaller villages
    8. The size of any infill will need to be appropriate to location
    9. Backfill and built limits ??
    10. Gvt and NPPF do not support backfill/back land development, if there are good
  5. Group members will set up another meeting to cover quiet lanes and gap policy with SODC officers and to discuss the landscape policies
  6. Group member will contact SODC officer to set up a meeting to discuss the changes required for other polices and suggested amendments
  7. Contact Landowner CFS8

Not recommended .  To our knowledge the site is available.  The final plan will propose the allocation.  There is an acknowledgement that the people who live nearby are upset with allocation.  The group should not muddy the process, with some landowners having additional information.  We should revisit when the next draft is published as this is fair to all parties

Highways didn’t object, gave a holding objection to this site – CFS 8

At the current time this site is deliverable, issues may arise, as suggested by OCC we need to check the archaeology on the site, any application has to be checked.  The landowner is likely to meet with developer.  This all takes time.

8  If the plan is changed significantly such as deciding not to have an allocation then the plan  would   need to go through another regulation 14 consultation

  1. The current  plan is well balanced and will benefit the parish
  2. The plan has policies and objectives that help to support this protection. It is not possible to have a policy that says “no building on open land”
Skip to content