LOVELACE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN GROUP

MEETING NOTES
of the LNPG POLICY HEADS COORDINATION MEETING

held on Thursday 12th May 2016
at Little Barn at 1900

PRESENT
Peter Gelardi (PG)
Richard Ayears (RA)
Jackie Bruder (JB)
Annie Cross (AC)
Jim Morris (JM)
Jan Jewers (JJ)

Apologies : Cameron Brown (CaB)
Chris Baker (CB)

1. Review Status of Air Quality Project
PG explained how important AQ had become in developmental planning recently and that therefore the outcome the proposed study could have a significant effect on policy decisions, particularly with regard to Environmental policy and also with regard to the timing of the implementation of Housing and Physical Development and Infrastructure policies.
It was agreed that the consultants selected to complete the study would be TRL. CB to deal with the commissioning and implementation with TRL.
a. Scope
OPC had now agreed to two AQ survey points, one on the Ockham side of the A3 and one in Ripley High St. and to limit the study to 4 months. This should reduce the overall cost to £16k. RHS were considering whether they could contribute £5 to this cost.
b. Timing
Because of the requirement to cover both summer and winter conditions, the study will start on the 1st Sept and finish on the 31st Dec. This means that the final results would not be available until February 2017.
To avoid an excessive delay to the progress of the Lovelace Plan it was agreed that the strategy would be as follows:
• Policies would be drafted on the assumption that the AQ study results DID NOT INDICATE EXCESSIVE LEVELS OF POLLUTANTS.
• TRL would be requested to review the data after the first month of testing and give indicative levels.
• If these suggested that limits for NO2 or PM would be exceeded, the policy groups would revise their policies to account for this.

2. Review Draft Policy Suggestions from Working Groups:
The main purpose of the meeting was to coordinate evidence gathering and harmonise the draft policies which were now emerging. It was agreed that Team Heads would examine the documents produced by other teams to minimise evidence overlap but that where policies overlapped they should be retained in the various draft policy documents. We would then task Navigus with integrating these into a cohesive whole.
A meeting has been set up with Chris Bowden of Navigus to plug them back into the LNPG policy drafting process and utilise their professional expertise to optimise both the evidence base available to the group and start to get the policy document ready for a health check before Christmas.
a. Facilities
JM presented an updated Facilities policy set with a substantial introduction and it was clear that significant work had gone into establishing the present situation, relating this to the requirements found in the initial survey and coming up with policies to optimise the position for residents and others. This would be examined by the rest of the Steering Committee and by Navigus to see how this document could be worked up further.
b. Commercial
The Commercial team had undertaken a further survey of businesses and had pulled together the results but had not yet been able to translate this into a policy set. AC undertook to present a draft document soon. In the meantime, she also undertook to set up a further meeting to coordinate with neighbouring Plan Groups.
c. Infrastructure
CB was unable to attend but had told PG that the next Infrastructure meeting would be on the 26th May and that they hoped to get Navigus along to this. They were also contacting the infrastructure teams in neighbouring areas. The Lovelace team would aim to get a draft document out by the end of July. Lisanne Mealing had confirmed that she now had more time and would be prepared to help CB get the required evidence base together and the Infrastructure draft policy set drawn up.
d. Environment
The Environment team was also well advanced and JJ had produced a comprehensive draft policy set, laid out as per the Yapton plan, which is our agreed model for the Lovelace Plan. This included maps. The Steering Committee would examine this and come back with suggestions and JJ would work with Navigus to ensure that the environmental policies were as wide ranging and effective as possible.

3. Housing and Physical Development
The Ripley Housing Team had coordinated with Ockham and Wisley and undertaken a detailed survey of opinions about housing requirements across the ward. They had been assisted in this by Surrey Community Action. The survey itself had been slightly undermined by a misunderstanding at OPC but the team had received enough responses to inform their deliberations about housing policy for the area.
They had then worked with AECOM to produce a comprehensive data analysis, which would be the core of the data set on which their policies would be based.
This team had also delivered a Call for Sites which had produced several offers of potential housing development sites. These had been reviewed for the LNPG by AECOM who had produced a set recommendations covering all the possible options.
a. Ripley
The Ripley team felt that it was therefore now in a position to start drafting the housing and physical development elements of the plan.
b. Wisley
There was, as yet, no ‘Wisley Housing Policy Team’. However, CaB and PG had undertaken to try and sit down with the RHS to establish their plans, which would form the foundation of any policy for Wisley.
c. Ockham
Ockham had decided to do an additional door-to-door survey and would add the data from this to the overall LNPG housing data set in June.

4. Treasurer’s Report
JM provided a Treasurers report which indicated that the LNPG initial funding application for £1,900 was now consumed but that the Ripley Parish Council had agreed to provide an additional £4,000. This meant that the total funding now available to the group was £16,600. It was now necessary to apply for a further tranche of this to cover the next six months, but this would have to be consumed within that period.
a. Funding claims
As there was no immediate need for cash, the meeting agreed that we should wait until the funding requirement to cover the AQ survey and consultancy support had become clear over the next month before deciding on a figure to request.

5. General Communication
It was accepted that the neighbourhood planning process required a consultation with the Lovelace stakeholders once the draft policy document was in place. However, it was felt that the LNPG residents may be beginning to feel ‘survey fatigue’. So it was suggested that this time the draft plan be promulgated to households as before but that the consultation process itself should be carried out by LNPG people making themselves available at a series meetings and events in the villages to discuss the plans and accept feedback.
a. Website
PG had taken back responsibility for the LNPG website and had updated all the core pages. He would continue to do this until someone else was able to take over this responsibility.

6. Review of Overall Process and Timings
The speed of the current element of the plan (evidence and draft policies) would be adversely affected by the requirement for the AQ survey but it was felt that we should still aim to be ready to submit the plan by the end of 2016.
a. Road Map
The steps to achieve this and the Road Map timings were revised by PG in the light of this decision and are attached to these notes as an Appendix.

7. Navigus Meeting
It was agreed that the group should now start to utilise its planning consultants more and that we should expect them to contribute more in the way of assisting with evidence sourcing and plan drafting. A meeting with Chris Bowden of Navigus had been set for Tuesday the 17th May at 4.00p.m. at the Talbot.
a. Meeting Objectives
As it has been several months since Navigus had met with the LNPG we intend to review the entire process with them and bring ourselves up to date with current practice. We would also establish a more intense process of consultant involvement as we get towards the definitive end of the process.

8. Any Other Business
a. Meeting With Other Neighbourhood Plan Groups
It was felt that there would be benefit in meeting with neighbouring policy group representatives once again and that this time we would try and include more of them. AC agreed to arrange this.

9. Next Meeting
There was no further Heads of Teams meeting planned but the next meeting of the full NPLG Steering Committee would be on the 1st June. Venue to be advised.