Minutes of Extraordinary meeting July 2024
Minutes of Extraordinary meeting 7:00pm 11/7/24 Rippingale Village Hall
Cllrs present:
Barry Ross (Chair), Julie Jones, Tony Creek
Apologies: Laura Davies – Clerk
Public Attendees –
Wendy Gray, Chris Ross, Adam Cliffe, Tony Freer, Jane Middleton, Karen Freer, Chris Catt, Laurie Parncutt, Carol Mayhew, Chris Petz, Chas Mayhew, Glenys Petz, Mark Pitterins, Steve Harrison, Joan Tarrant, Bryony Harrison, Chris Tarrant, Pat Cottam, Sue Atkinson.
Cllr Richard Dixon – Warren (RDW),
----------------
BR outlined the reason for the meeting:
1411. The Parish Council has become aware of a conflict between Policy HD2 in Rippingale’s Neighbourhood Plan (RNP) and Policy SP4 in the Local Plan from SKDC (LP) and is seeking support from the local community to make a change to the wording of RNP Policy HD2 to remove this conflict.
The conflict is, that under the LP, Policy SP4 requires that all the criteria for supporting a development application must be met. Whereas, in the RNP Policy HD2 only one of the first two criteria needs to be met.
The Parish Council considers that this conflict is caused by the use of the word “OR” rather than the word “AND” at the end of Policy HD2 para (a) in the RNP and that this was a minor error in the drafting of the RNP.
Government Guidance makes provision for a minor change to take place without the requirement to go to full Examination or Referendum. (Localism Act 2011 Section 61M refers)
It is considered that the ‘and/or’ issue is a minor error and therefore can be corrected within Government Guidelines.
BR opened the floor to the public:
1) Member of the public - what are the two criteria either side of the ‘or’ in the RNP?
- 1412. BR explained that these were –
i) Substantial community support
ii) An up-to-date Housing Needs Assessment
2) Member of the public – expressed concern about precedence being set if we allow this error to remain in place and that it should be a concern for everyone in the village.
1413. BR confirmed that he believes it is important that the PC has the support of the village to make this modification to the RNP.
1414. Member of the public - what would SKDC do in this situation, where do they stand?
RDW advised he did not know, but SKDC are neutral and in awe of any village that completes a NP. The error was not noticed by the authors of the RNP, nor the professional advisor, nor the professional Examiner, nor the authorising body that “made” the RNP. A NP goes through a very rigorous production process, but the error was not noticed until highlighted in a recent Outline Planning approval. RDW stated that he remains extremely supportive of the NP being amended to correct the error.
1415. Member of public - The ‘and’ was in the May 23 Newsletter and that was what villagers voted on.
- BR reminded everyone that this article is the is the only evidence that he has found where the word ‘and’ was used and not the word ‘or’ and that the village residents voted on a document made available for viewing in 2023 which used the word “or” and that no-one could have foreseen the significance of this error.
- TC stated that if SKDC objected to the amendment, then further evidence may have to be found to support the belief that villagers voted on a RNP with the word “and” in this context.
- RDW re-stated that the RNP was Rippingale’s document and that SKDC had no jurisdiction on its content.
1416. Member of public - who identified the conflict between the 2 documents?
- RDW advised that the planning officer highlighted it in a recent Outline Planning approval document.
- BR stated that it may have been identified by someone working for the developer in a recent Outline Planning application.
1417. Member of public - if there is resistance from SKDC then they should be asked why the PC would knowingly allow there to be development on the edge of the village.
- BR stated we do have to accept development in the village, but we have to be able to have a say in what is built.
- BR advised that this does not mean all development will be avoided, but the residents must have the right to have some control over what it is.
1418. Member of public – is it preferable that public give their opinions on this amendment directly to SKDC or only through the PC?
- BR stated that he would prefer there to be one voice and therefore allow the PC to deal with it at this time.
1419. Member of public – are there any minutes of discussions when the original NP was written and it’s wording decided?
- BR advised that he had found nothing as yet, other than the Newsletter May 23.
- BR will approach Michelle, the previous parish clerk to see if she has any relevant documentation.
- Discussion ensued around whether anybody within the village has any evidence that shows the document had ‘and’. None was forthcoming.
- BR re-iterated that we are simply trying to align the two documents (LP & RNP), thereby negating the need for additional evidence of the presence of the word “and”.
1420. Member of public – asked if the Parish council has sets of minutes and records of meetings from that time that the RNP was being drafted.
- BR stated they will exist, but that it would be unlikely that every single word used in the RNP would have been discussed in those meetings.
- Member of public - somewhere there should be archives?
- Wendy Grey advised that there is a locked cabinet in the village hall and that she will try to locate the key.
- TC stated that if we need to mount a case for defence we will, but reminded everyone that this meeting has been convened solely to vote on correcting the error.
1421. Member of public - does that mean the planning can be revoked if it is found that there was a word error in the RNP?
- BR stated that the routes available to overturn Planning Approvals were complex, expensive and very unlikely to succeed.
1422. Member of public - approached the Cllrs and handed BR a copy of a Planning application refusal document in which SKDC used the word “and”.
- BR understood the concern but advised that in the refusal context, neither of the RNP Policy HD2 criteria had been met, so the use of the word “and” was correct in that case.
1423. Member of public – expressed anger over the way in which SKDC had dealt with a previous application, especially around the issue of advisory letters which none of the affected residents received. An official complaint had been raised with SKDC on this matter.
- BR confirmed that the PC is supportive of those who feel they have been treated wrongly by SKDC, but that this meeting is about the changing of the wording in the RNP.
1424. BR advised that it was his understanding that the amendment will need to go to the original Examiner with an explanation document before it could be finalised.
The Proposal was read by BR:
So that the conflict between the RNP & SKDC’s LP is resolved, I propose that the wording in NP Policy HD2 be changed at paras (a) & (b) to read:-
“ Development proposals on the edge of the village will be supported provided that:
a. clear evidence of substantial support* from the local community is demonstrated through an appropriate, thorough and proportionate pre-application community consultation exercise; and
b. the proposed development meets a proven local need for a particular type of housing, based on an up-to-date housing need assessment or assessment of the type and number of housing able to promote the longer-term sustainability of the village.”
Members of the public were asked to express their acceptance of this proposal by a show hands .
Except for RDW abstaining, the Public Vote was unanimous.
The Parish Councillor positive vote was Unanimous
BR thanks everyone for attending and closed the meeting.