Extracts from Minutes of Meetings of Steering Group

 

12 July 2021

Call for Sites SW submitted comments/tracked changes. It was decided that more thought was needed around this document. CM says the process must be handled sensitively and to be clear on the criteria. Submit methodology before advert goes out – based on lessons learnt in the past.    DN emphasises the need for the document to be highly confidential.  Suggestion that ‘Call for potential different land uses’ more appropriate than asking specifically for sites to build on. CT to discuss focus meeting with Rachel Nokes to discuss the process.                 4. Any other business   SW asked for information on draft report- Environment/ecology.  Suggestion to going out to schools and raise awareness. CT to ring SW to discuss.     Importance of using Microsoft Teams in between meetings for communication  RO to send through information regarding training videos

 

24 January 2022

Nick Cardnell- introduction and role in Neighbourhood Planning  Nick is a Senior Panning Officer. There have been 29 Neighbourhood Plans published in the area as well as 26 in progress. Dorset Council has    Steering Group members can send questions to CT to pass on to NC to answer.      CT   2  duty to advise groups on Neighbourhood Plans, e.g., strategic plans, national policies, maps, data, etc. Dorset Council will also assist with public consultation and run the referendum.  The Local Plan consultation was last February, and a total of 9000 people responded. Now at the stage of summarising and processing feedback. The data has been published online. Overall timescale suggests public consultation in May 2022 with survey next year and adoption in winter 2023. There are also 5 studies awaiting to be published:   Strategic Flood Risk Assessment  Retail and Town Centre Assessment  Local Viability Evidence  Economic Needs Assessment  Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment                 RC commented it would be good to have due dates for these studies. 

 

14 March 2022

Local Green Spaces Call for Sites CM summarised we have received 8 applications (relating to 5 spaces). He responds to them individually and collates them to reference numbers, and where required assists applicants to complete. Mapping the sites on the current form is problematic and grid references are required. Landowners will need to be approached in due course from a WTC email address. Closing date for applications can be flexible as more LGS may arise at future community events. Ongoing receipt and collating of applications to continue and SG to be updated.      CM 10.  Next dates for meeting   Monday 4th April 7pm Steering Group   

 

20June 2022

Declaration of Interest  A non-disclosure undertaking form was circulated to all SG members. This protects sensitive data on the Call for Sites information being assessed and reported on by AECOM. Anyone choosing not to sign will not have access to the site information until it has been released to the public by the SG and WTC in September 2022. All forms returned to DN who will ensure data sharing is sensitive to the nondisclosure undertaking.  DN

 

18 July 2022

Homes-Good membership of group, significant sensitivity over the ‘prospect list’ of potential sites. DN has asked for any remaining Declaration of Interest, Non-Disclosure forms to be returned; any member choosing not to do so, will not be privy to the site information until it’s in the public realm.   CM declined to sign the DoI until Town Councillors are informed.  DN outlined how the 61 sites had reduced to a long list of 31 sites.  At the last homes meeting a set of criteria focussed around maximising the affordable homes opportunity reduced this to 19 sites (noting that 8 sites were Town Centre car parks which could not all be given over to housing).  5 of these sites are outside the Development Boundary and that as Exceptions Site could have a much higher proportion of Affordable Homes.  DN thought that not all owners/agents would support the development of sites for affordable homes or might wish to continue with current usage and saw the number of sites reducing as they were engaged.  Following this the revised short list would be made available to the public following agreement by SG and Planning & Licensing Committee (16th Aug) and Full Council (7th Sept).  Despite these new opportunities the Housing Need in Weymouth would not be satisfied.  DN mentioned the planned meeting with both Dorset Council Assets and Planning teams to raise this shortfall and enquire what might be done to remedy it given they are the largest landowner in Weymouth. Further discussion regarding WTC purchasing DC land/assets. SG voted to draft item for review by Planning & License Committee for a non-sitespecific request for WTC to purchase DC land/assets. Draft to be to be shared with SG

 

15 August 2022

Affordable Homes Paper Draft B circulated 2/8/22 for comment ahead of the meeting. No comments were received ahead of the meeting. DN explained that following approval of the paper there would be further engagement with landowners and Dorset Council and consultation with the Public will take place which is expected to reduce the length of the shortlist. Two members expressed concerns that there was not a commitment by WTC to acquire land for housing development directly.  DN explained that he felt the first step was to discuss with the asset holders (including Dorset Council) their development of land for housing.   A meeting is being arranged with Dorset Council (Portfolio Holders and Directors for Assets, Housing and Planning) to discuss addressing the shortfall in AH provision.     SG approved the AH Paper to go to Planning & Licensing on 16th August and Full Council 7th Sept with two abstentions. Progress Paper to P&L and FC.     Report on progress from the DC meeting for consideration of next steps.

 

7 November 2022

Agree Approach to 3rd Engagement Agreed to defer to January ’23. DCF happy to support but not to support a Survey – there is potential for us to carry this out by a simple online questionnaire which will be looked at by Jane and Michele.  Agreed to defer and to undertake a short online survey consisting of no more than 20 Yes/No questions in January to include postcode/community.  Discussion on what the questions should be and cover.  Will be on the 16 Key Questions that PW had produced and an additional 4 that David covering the CrossCutting Objectives.  These would then be put into plain English.  This will be supported by a Comms Plan promoting the survey and packs, including hard-copy, at Libraries, and Council Offices.  Rob advised would be beneficial to have publicity between now and Christmas in various locations and online to advertise that we will be holding a survey in January and that it is an opportunity for people to have their say.  Look at displaying a  poster at GP Surgeries, the libraries etc.  Also agreed to do a video which can be on our website to explain what and why we are doing a NP.  Jane, David, Phil and Colin to meet to look at the questions.       Circulate the 20 questions

 

13 February 2023

Feedback on 3rd Engagement – Paul Weston:  Paul wanted to thank the Council staff for the work they have done in getting the survey documents and comments out to him to help him with his report.                 ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY WHOM David advised he had asked Sarah if possible, to run off a report which shows an individual’s response across all questions (attached).  Agreed that it would have been helpful to ask for a postcode to identify where the responses have come from.    Paul was very positive about the responses and although there were lots of comments on certain questions, they were constructive.  This also included that although negative on the contentious questions the rest were positively responded on.  David also explained that following the Council’s social media posts there were noticeable spikes in the responses which was positive.  David advised the group that he was going to write to the Planning department about how the impact that the false communication has had on the results, as he was concerned that the number of negative comments would be taken into account.  Phil did make a point that although we cannot demonstrate that there was an impact on the false communication, we can allude to it having potentially influenced results

 

13 March 2023

Feedback on Response to Complaint:  Jane has sent the reply to the complaint le er and currently there has been no further response.  David said that we would look at how we can allow more response per device for future surveys/engagement.  There were a number of things quoted in the complaint le er that have been investigated and no evidence has been found to substantiate the claims to these items.  Jane logged the Code of Conduct complaint and to date has had no response. Jane will chase this up. Chase Code of Conduct response.          JB  4. Analysis & Interpretation and Implications on Neighbourhood Plan:   The group agreed that the DCF report and data received was an accurate record of the Focus Group sessions.            Paul added that there were several bullet points where he was unsure if it was one person or a whole consensus on an item, but he had liaised with DCF.  Paul stated that he was only working on the Land use data, but there was a lot of additional information.  Colin M said that this information is s ll very valuable and would propose a Aspira on Sec on of the plan that picks these things up – It would be for the Steering Group to decide if this was appropriate to take forward or not.  Colin M also said that this additional information also has lots of cross cu ng links to other council areas e.g. CEE agenda and working group.  Penny raised a ques on/concern about has the plan development to date whether it has had a fair representation from the whole community as she feels that this probably hasn’t happened and there are sections that have not had an input.  David said that this is something we are aware of and that we have tried to make engagement as accessible as we can so far. We will keep looking at this issue and try and do everything we can to engage as many people as possible from all sections of the community. We can only control creating the opportunity to respond and make it as accessible as possible.  Paul added that when the draft plan becomes public, he would anticipate an big increase in the amount of people that comment.

 

5 April 2023

Complaint Discussion & Decision:   Michael expressed his views on the complaint and the actions taken by Jonathan Mair – he has worked with Jonathan when he was a DC Councillor and felt that Jonathan is a very professional person and if he responded in a way, we felt inappropriate it would not have been done lightly.  Michael suggested we write asking for a clearer explanation and the process for going to the Ombudsman if we felt still necessary.  Penny felt that despite the individuals being advised that the information in their social media was incorrect they still published the leaflet which she felt was very unprofessional.  Page 4 of 4  ITEM DISCUSSION  Phil felt that we would need to strengthen our appeal if we decide to go to the Ombudsman.  Lucy suggested that perhaps as mentioned before we could use The Resident Magazine which specifically went to Wyke Regis and Preston residents to put out any positive information to counteract the blatantly false information already provided?  David felt that the response was a failing on DC’s part to address the situation but suggested that perhaps we need to arrange a meeting with the individuals concerned to address these untruths.  David also explained that he and Colin M would be meeting with the Southlands Allotment Group to facilitate conversation and put correct any misinformation and answer their concerns.  David advised that he aware that some councillors are holding monthly resident meetings and was willing to attend to address concerns if he was invited.  Unanimous agreement for Colin to send his response letter to Jonathan Mair.

 

11 April 2023

Councillor Complaints Update:  David explained he was unclear on our next action and was going to seek some advice from Locality as to whether they have every had this before and how they might have dealt with it.  Jane informed that she was also unsure so had sought advice from a colleague whose opinion she valued. They had said they were not surprised by the response, suggestion that we only influence what we can and go forward with positive comms to counteract the negative.                      ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY WHOM  David put to the group as previously mentioned that perhaps we meet up with the individuals to discuss their concerns – set the example.  David is not expecting an apology but maybe can find a way forward.  Hopefully have meeting before the 3rd May meeting  Jane will try and arrange and act as neutral party.  Penny still feels strongly about the matter but will be involved in the meeting.  David informed group that he was hoping to meet with the allotment group to talk through any concerns with them and, is aware that there are monthly meetings being held with residents and the ward councillors and would attend if an invitation was received.      Arrange meet with Preston Councillors  Southdown Allotments meet 22/

 

15 May 2023

Code of Conduct/Consultation Statement Update: David still to write to Locality to ask for guidance. We have not published our 3rd engagement, want to include in the plan how the responses might have been distorted.  Sandie questioned whether we could have a covering document which explains the status of how the responses and why we paused. David explained that yes, we will once we have a response from Locality and felt uncomfortable about sending out anything before the response from Locality.   Write to Locality  Update Survey Report

Any Other Business: Rob: Green week is coming up 10th – 18th June which will showcase what is already being done – query whether the SG would like to have something at the event. David and Rob to have chat.  David: At the last Full Council meeting on 10/05/2023 Lucy Hamilton nominated Pete Dickenson to join the Steering Group.  David was unaware that Lucy was going to do this, and the reasons why are unknown.    David informed them that the Council cannot decide this as per the Terms of Reference the decision lies with the SG members.  David had sent an email to Pete Dickenson asking for a resume and providing his background and why he wishes to join the SG.   Chat re showcase   David / Rob   ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY WHOM  Phil responded that he was not happy and surprised that Lucy had put Pete forward, which others agreed – also questioned whether this meant that Lucy was stepping down as TOR delegate that only 4 councillors would be on the SG, to ensure not Council led.  David advised that any formal complaints to be sent to him directly.  Post Meeting Note: Pete Dickinson has since advised ‘After a week of thought and refection I now consider that it would not be appropriate, beneficial or indeed  in the best interest of my residents to join the steering group

 

12 June 2023

Code of Conduct Complaint - Update: David had written to Locality seeking advice and there has been an initial response essentially advising recording what occurred, rationale for analysis and carrying out further public engagement. ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY WHOM There has been FOI request which needs collating and to be submitted by 16th June 2023.  David and Michele have been tasked with this – explained information which we have provided and what we have withheld due to being commercially sensitive or still-inwork with an intent to publish later.

 

10 July 2023

Any Other Business: Colin M: Explained that we need to present our 3rd engagement – NEED to show what the responses were – could possibly include the difference in responses pre and post publication. Penny: Keen for us to hold engagements across whole of Weymouth to ensure that we have as wide a coverage of engagement with residents of ALL areas.

 

31 July 2023

4th Engagement: David explained that following a meeting with Jane there will be the following in respect of the public engagement, which will focus on the site development and local green spaces; - 4 drop-in sessions across weymouth to allow people to come ask questions, get clarification and for us to get their views / feedback on the sites; - A public meeting in the Council Chamber in an evening, with councillors and the public; - Displays in the libraries for a 2-week period which will give information about the upcoming drop-in’s and public meeting. ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY WHOM  Michele looking at venues and to update group as soon as possible so members can put in their diaries.  Some discussion around whether we are veering from our aims and objectives – agreed to be mindful and include our A&O in the displays at all events.  concerns raised that this is becoming very political, and this goes against what we aiming to achieve, David aware although it might appear this way, we do need to try ensure that any previous negative views are not repeated.  Suggestion to also have some photos of other developments around Weymouth that have been positive i.e. Curtis Fields.  Meeting to be arranged for Friday to look at the draft display board information and any changes can be undertaken in a single process rather than bits coming in at different times.  The answers to the questions raised from the presentations from developers to be sent to SG. (CONFIDENTIAL)

 

11 September 2023

It was noted that the decision on Allocating Sites for Affordable Homes following the 4th Engagement would be a critical and difficult decision and members would need relevant information on time and with adequate notice of the meeting.   There was general agreement that 2 to 5 days advance notice of background reading was reasonable prior to meetings. It was also important to record actions and reasons and circulate this with minimum delay to all SG members.  Where there are concerns it would be best to discuss the concerns rather than raise emails.

 

29 September 2023

4) Land off Budmouth Avenue Site: 9 ha for residential development of approximately 250 dwellings with 50% Affordable Homes, and the remaining. Discussion around risk of developers relegating on their agreement to provide 50% AH.  We might be setting precedence if giving development to outside DB.  But we can tighten up the scope and add clauses which will make it difficult for them to renege on promises.  CM not keen at all to agree this site, as with the Wyke Oliver Farm development and possibly the north section of Old Tip would not leave a lot of green open space.  Also in report from George Venning says not viable but once table tweaked it makes it viable.  David responded saying that there is justification for 50% in George’s conclusions. CM concerned that the SEA has a lot of red areas, transport being key as most residents are reliant on motor vehicles for transport and there is no public transport which will impact hugely on the roads if having to use personal vehicles.  This could be addressed by highlighting the needs for public transport?  There is also no community centre – which again we could put into the specifications. Agreed -this site was agreed by a majority.    5) Wyke Oliver Farm North Site: 11 ha for residential development of approximately 230 dwellings with 50% Affordable Homes, and the remaining. 8 ha ceded Dorset Wildlife Trust as an extension to Lorton Valley Nature Park. It was noted that Dorset Wildlife Trust have yet to agree they want the land but they have already agreed in principle with the draft emerging Local Plan  extending the LVNP boundary.   Colin was concerned that agreeing both Budmouth and Wyke Oliver may be too much. David said at this stage we should proceed in Reg 14 with both and then re-asses. Agreed – this site was agreed by a majority

 

4 October 2023

Any Other Business: Rob presented the “How Green is Our Plan” data to the group – once the rescoring done as a group it was more positive and with a couple more changes it will more than likely go up which is encouraging. Discussion on where this will sit and agreed to be issued with the Plan and referenced from the plan. It was noted that Renewable Energy scored low, possibly looking at post Reg 14.  David wanted to thank everyone for their continued support and the time everyone has put into this plan to get it to this stage.   David feels that DC is now realising that our plan is a very robust plan that they will have to take into account.   Also mentioned that WTC (especially the Clerk) is standing up for our plan and the group as a whole.

 

6 November 2023

Agreed to send a letter to DC that any delay which happens during Purdah using reason of the plan being political matter is invalid and would be at our detriment.

 

11 December 2023

Minutes & Matters Arising: The chair reported that he had not heard back from Jonathan Mair at Dorset Council regarding the appeal against the election purdah decision. JB noted that two Freedom of Information requests and two formal complaints relating to the WNP had been received and explained the process that had to be followed and the information needed to be provided by members of the Steering Group and Councillors. It was confirmed that personal e-mail addresses would be redacted.  CH could not recall adverts that were to have been placed in the Dorset Echo.  It was confirmed that all feedback from the consultation was being logged by WTC and continuously fed to our planning consultant who will collate this and circulate a summary by w/c 26/12/23. It was further noted that 2 statutory responses had been received to date.  The Chair confirmed that we were awaiting the viability test for the urban areas. When produced a presentation to the SG was recommended.  PQ expressed concern at the impact on the WNP status in the absence of a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment which had still not been published by Dorset Council despite repeated requests including an FOI. The DC response to the WNP in this situation was uncertain and could result in the progress of the plan being halted.  Progress had been made on the revised Maps from AECOM and final versions were awaited.  These would use OS base mapping.  PQ asked how the WNP would be tested for robustness of the policies. It was noted that this had been accomplished to some degree by the HRA and SEA. Other options were discussed including review by a planning inspector.