Policy PNP 1 - Meeting Local Need

I agree

Meeting local needs is most important. People love the village and stay for many years over which their housing needs change. Having the opportunity to move within the village, to up-size or down-size is important to keeping the community together.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan. Please note that Anglian Water provides wastewater services to Pirton Parish. The views of Affinity Water who are responsible for water services within the Parish should also be sought on the content of the Neighbourhood Plan.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response.

Policy PNP1: Meeting Housing Need

Policy PNP1 outlines the criteria for residential development proposed within the Parish. However no specific sites are identified for residential development within the Neighbourhood Plan.

We would comment on any proposals for housing which include proposals for 10 or more dwellings as part of the planning application process.

Policy PNP10: Support for local business

Policy PNP10 outline the criteria for employment development proposed within the Parish. However no specific sites are identified for employment development within the Neighbourhood Plan.

We would comment on any proposals for employment developments of 0.5ha or more as part of the planning application process.

Therefore for the above reasons Anglian Water has no comments relating to the content of Neighbourhood Plan.

See attached

See attached

I fully support the Pirton Neighbourhood plan.

In particular the building of more bungalows which are in great demand.

I would like to offer my support of the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan. In particular, p.23 of the document headed 'Community Feedback' is of particular importance as the findings of the survey conducted are generally summarised as showing the community having 'a preference for small developments over the lifetime of the plan, providing adequate infrastructure is in place'.

To quantify this the plan document states that 46% of the community want fewer than 10 dwellings to be built at any one time, and 24% between 10-25.

Given that the Cala Homes proposal does not consider, nor provide for adequate and improved village access and infrastructure during its development or beyond, I would vote for the addition of fewer than 10 dwellings at the Elm Tree Farm/ Holwell corner development.

* There has been no meaningful dialogue with landowners during the creation of the NDP. The calling of a meeting in July 2016 was a "tick the box exercise" as only short notice was given (2 weeks maximum) and that was the harvest / school holiday period. It was made clear it was not to hear our opinion but to tell us what they wanted. The plan was not open to amendment. To suggest in the Basic Conditions Statement, Page 2 "Building on the open nature of the steering group meetings, it is important to confirm that all decisions made within the Plan have been informed by significant community consultation and stakeholder engagement including engagement with strategic landowners or promoters". In my opinion this basically not true.

* No updates or correspondence has been forthcoming.

* The creation of Visual Character Areas round the village is an attempt to put up a barrier to build houses in those locations. At no time has representatives of the PPC nor steering group had discussions with those who own these sites to ascertain any agreement.

* The cap of 30 houses on any individual site is illogical and can only be seen as a way of reducing new houses in the future.

* I am along with owners of substantial parcels of land in the Pirton Parish disappointed that our views have not been sought on any aspects of the Plan over which we have a lot of experience.

I would wish to make a representation in relation to the Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) and I contend that through the adoption of certain policies Pirton Parish Council has failed to meet the basic conditions for Neighbourhood Plans and other legal requirements.

Whilst I understand that the Examiner may wish to hold a public hearing, I confirm that I shall be prepared to submit further written representations if required by the Examiner. Would North Herts District Council please accept
this initial representation to include a request that I should be notified regarding North Hertfordshire District Council's decision under Regulation 19 (making a plan) to make the submitted neighbourhood plan for Pirton.

James F Sheridan FRICS and my company, Stratton Estates Ltd, have been retained by the estate and beneficiaries of the late Jonathan Weeden. In particular my instructions have been to promote the development of land opposite Rectory Manor Farm on Shillington Road, Pirton, extending to approx. 7.23 acres (2.924 hectares) known as site 064(N) or more recently PT1(N) by NHDC, and with title no XXXXX.

On behalf of the beneficiaries I wrote to Stephen Smith, clerk to Pirton Parish Council, on 4th February 2015 and stated that we wanted to make development representations under the proposed Pirton Neighbourhood Plan for the
Shillington Road land - no reply was received and no literature on the plan process was ever sent to me. I attended a public meeting on the draft plan on 19 April 2016 and in response to a question from a local landowner, Mr Phil Cooke, as to why landowners had not been consulted on the plan, the Chair of the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, Diane Burleigh, said that the Group had decided not to talk to owners and they were not interested in site allocations at all. I completed a response form which was posted on 13th May 2016 which pointed out that the Draft Plan claimed to support appropriate sustainable development, but the steering committee were refusing any contact with local landowners. With a plan period up to 2031 I believe this intransigence invalidates the whole PNDP process. A hastily arranged meeting for landowners was called at short notice by Diane Burleigh for 19 July 2016, but I do not believe this late effort at a token consultation was sufficient. Indeed it is not clear if the meeting ever took place or, if it did, who attended. Copy correspondence in relation to the above is available for the Examiner.

I request that the attached submission for Shillington Road by Vincent and Gorbing for the draft NHDC Local Plan should be considered as a future development opportunity in Pirton in relation to the PNDP and over the plan period of the PNDP. The lack of any consideration of possible site allocations in the PNDP is a serious weakness which I believe should be addressed by the Examiner.

May I also make the following detailed comments:

TCPA 1990 Schedule 4b para 4,para 6(2)(d) and NP (General) Regs 2012 Regulations 14 and 15(2)(a) - in view of what I have stated the qualifying body has not complied with the requirements regarding the scope of pre-submission consultation.

PCPA 2004 2004 Section 38A(2) - the PNDP is overly restrictive and does not set out policies in relation to the realistic development and use of land in the neighbourhood area. No sites are allocated for any housing development
even though Pirton is a Category A village (suitable for housing expansion) and not in the Green Belt.. There is a significant shortage of suitable, non Green Belt, housing sites in the North Herts District Council area. (Plan ref. 1.4.1 to 1.4.4)

PNP1 - the proposed (but not finalised) village development boundary is unduly restricting and should naturally extend to Shillington Road and Priors Hill to the north west. (Plan ref.1.1)
The 30 unit housing cap is arbitrary and illogical as it has no connection to the size of a site. It should be removed. (Plan ref.1.2)

PNP7 - Key views and vistas (and visual character areas) are restrictive and artificial and are designed to prevent any development. The impact of new developments on views should be assessed on an individual basis.

One of the most important of the criteria for a neighbourhood plan is: How the plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development . The PNDP fails to achieve this goal and it does not support a strong. vibrant and healthy community, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations.

I look forward to hearing the views of the Examiner and on behalf of my clients I propose that the PNDP should be deemed unacceptable in its present form.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached