Peter Gelardi, Chairman, (PG)(Chairman) (Secretary)
Chris Baker (Ockham) (CB)
Annie Cross (Ripley) (AC)
Chris Mealing (Ripley )(CM)
Apologies: Richard Ayears (Ripley) (RA)
Cameron Brown (Wisley) (CB)
Jan Jewers (Ripley) (JJ)
Jim Morris, Treasurer, (Ripley) (JM)
Not present: Michael Jenkins (Wisley) (MJ)
In attendance: Colin Cross (CC)

1. The minutes of the meeting on 10 August 2016 were agreed and signed by the chairman.
(a) Matters arising
PG and CB had attended a meeting with Montague Evans and the RHS. Montague Evans have, at the request of RHS, agreed to support the production of the LNP wherever possible. This included extracting elements of a previous RHS development plan for Wisley for inclusion in the LNP and reviewing the draft LNP at an appropriate point in the process. Both ME and RHS confirmed that would be happy for the site owned by RHS in Wisley Village earmarked for some 80 houses to be included as a potential housing development site in the plan.

2. Review of GBC Local Plan:
CC explained that the level of response by the public to the new draft Local Plan had been extremely high and that the borough officers were still going through the 20,000+ communications. At the same time, some national forecasts for housing requirement had been revised downwards and there was talk of a further downward revision in the light of Brexit.
Until GBC announces any variation to the Local Plan as a result of any of these events the LNPG would continue to use the Local Plan SHMAA figures and other assumptions.

3. Review Status of Air Quality Project:
CC said that the first readings from the GBC diffusion tubes placed on Ripley High St were due by the end of the month. It was agreed that it would be sensible to wat until we saw the reading from these before commissioning the TRL four month study. CB pointed out that, although the total cost of the study could reach £9,000, the commitment by LNPG was only for about £2,000 as the study could be cut short after a month.
It was agreed that, if the TRL survey was commissioned, the ideal location for the sampler device would be in the guitar shop courtyard.

4. Review of Working Groups and 5. Draft Neighbourhood Plan:
The Facilities, Business, Infrastructure and Environment groups had undertaken an all day meeting on the 25th August to amalgamate their team contributions into one document. At this meeting certain principles and drafting policies were agreed on. A note of these is attached as an appendix to these minutes.
Since then, AC, JJ and JM had done further work on this. PG thanked them on behalf of the whole group for completing what had been a substantial but vital task.
In the absence of RA, AC had since received contributions from some Housing group members which she had incorporated into the draft. However, we still required additional contributions, particularly from Ockham and Wisley. PG advised that CB was on the case with RHS and local residents to come up with something and CB undertook to try and secure from OPC a sensible document distilling the results of their recent housing survey.

6. Coordination with Neighbouring Plan Groups:
Following meetings and conversations with East Horsley, Send, Pyrford and others, it was felt that there was little more to be gained by further meetings at this stage.

7. Treasurer’s Report:
It was agreed that the next six months were likely to see significant expenditure, both on air quality surveys and with planning consultants, particularly Navigus. So it was decided to apply for the full £6,600 available immediately. Assuming this was drawn down by the end of October, these funds would have to be utilised by the end of April 2017. That would leave a possible £6,000 available through a ‘complex’ group application and another £4,000, if necessary, promised by RPC.

8. General Communication:
Little progress to report on the website. However, AC felt that she would soon be ready to work on getting it spruced up in time for the next consultation process in November.

9. Road Map:
After some discussion it was decided to retain the current Road Map target timings but to be aware that delays to the outstanding housing contributions, results from the air quality tests and revisions to the Local Plan could all result in target timings having to be revised.

10. Consultants
It was agreed that the draft plan was now sufficiently coherent to require version control and benefit from additional contributions from Jim Allen (JA), who has a wealth of relevant data and who is experienced in getting neighbourhood plans from draft to implemented. PG undertook to set this arrangement up and keep members advised.
The plan was to start knocking the plan into shape with JA once the additional contributions required had been received and only then to send it to Navigus (and Montague Evans) for their higher level scrutiny and recommendations.

11. AOB
At the Heads of Teams meeting on the 25th it had been decided that the plan would not oppose the planned ‘insetting’ of Ripley into the Green Belt because it was not in the power of a neighbourhood plan to stop Local Plan decisions like this. However, since then, some members had had second thoughts about this strategy and felt that it was important to reflect the views of the Ripley residents, in surveys and at meetings, which were strongly against such a move.
It was therefore agreed that the plan should include a section explaining the potential negative effects of this action, the reasons why it was not consistent with stated borough policy and similar decisions elsewhere, and expressing the residents’ consensus in the matter.

12. Next Meeting
The next meeting will be Wednesday 5th October, 7pm at The Talbot

These are some notes from a meeting of the Policy Group Heads on Thursday the 25th August 2016 which included conversations with Dan Knowles of the Guildford Borough Council Planning Department. They include a set of guiding principles for the drafting of the Lovelace Neighbourhood Plan which were agreed at the meeting
1 AIR QUALITY – After consultation with Jim Allen and others it was decided that it was important to understand the air quality position on Ripley High St. because this could represent a valuable tool with which to limit developments in the whole area, if this was ever considered necessary. It was therefore agreed to proceed with the minimum proposed TRL survey as soon as possible. This would be a single point survey supplemented by tubes at Burt Common and the Ockham Roundabout.

2 SITE ALLOCATION BY THE PLAN – GBC confirmed that, even if specific sites were ruled out by the neighbourhood plan, the Borough Council planning committee could overrule these decisions if this was necessary for the borough to meet its housing targets.

3 CIL MONEY – Current legislation is changing the Community Infrastructure Levy rules and percentages. If a parish council has a neighbourhood plan in place it can secure 25% of all CIL levies to be applied to whatever area improvement projects it sees fit. It was noted that should the proposed Wisley Airfield strategic site for 2,000+ dwellings ever proceed, the Lovelace parish councils will be entitled to receive a very substantial sum which could be used to mitigate (to some extent) the worst effects of the development. The same will apply to any large development, including Garlic’s Arch.
The structure OF THE PLAN will follow that of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, for easy reference.

The plan will be edited down to be as compact as possible, along the lines of the Yapton and Burpham plans, which will provide a reference template.

The objective of the plan is not to oppose the policies of the Local Plan but to supplement these and to mitigate the adverse effects of Local Plan policies for Lovelace, where these exist.

Given the preconditions laid down by GBC for the Wisley Airfield development, it is very unlikely that this will actually take place for several years, if it happens at all. It was therefore resolved that the neighbourhood plan would be drafted to deal with the period during which Wisley Airfield was not developed – which might be five years or extend to the end of the plan period. The plan would then include a second section, which would provide an assessment of the benefits and ill effects which would result from the implementation of the current plans for this site and would lay out a further series of polices to mitigate these ill effects, given the fact that they will then have considerable resources at their disposal.