Neighbourhood Plan Group Meeting Minutes

Minutes of a meeting held at 2.30pm at The Holly Tree on Monday 10 ^th July 2017

1.  Apologies for absence: Bill Langridge (unwell), and Edmund Camerer Cuss.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Youatt, Ann Cannings, Bill Pethers and Peter Brown.

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 7 ^th June 2017: Approved

3.  Matters arising:

a)  Affordable Housing Survey: SC reported that a contract had been placed and the survey was imminent. Both ADC and WPC were consulted and it was confirmed that it will be an independent assessment of housing needs.

b)  Design Guide: SC reported that Sue Wallsgrove had volunteered to assist JK in the identification of landscape areas.

c)  Sunny Corner: there had been no recent contact with the landowners.

4.  Barnfield House planning application : it was noted that there had been minor amendments to the proposals and the consultation period will end on 27.07.17. House numbers to be reduced from 23 to 22, with more open space and a new bat survey. Sc was pleased to see that many objections from Walberton Village clearly recognised that this application was a threat to the Neighbourhood Plan itself.

5.  Welbeck Site in Wandleys Lane ( not to be called Wandleys Farm ): members who had attended the recent public consultation were appalled by the proposal to build 170 houses with the access onto the narrow twisting Wandleys Lane. The application will be strongly resisted by the whole community.

6.  Tuppers Field Petition: ADC's Overview Committee's recommendation was to be considered by its full Council on Wednesday 12 ^th July. SC reported excellent support from our two District Councillors, Norman Dingemans and Robert Wheal. There was an outside chance that Walberton's case would win support, although the time for debate was very restricted. It was agreed that, if the case is won, we should immediately consult Ashley Bowes as to how we should react: the closing date for comments on the current planning application was 10 ^th August.

7.  Ford Parish Neighbourhood Plan: SC had brought this to the Group's attention as the proposals would have a major bearing on the provision of new housing in this part of the District. The headline proposal was the construction of 1,500 homes on the former airfield - but subject to future access to the proposed Arundel A27 Bypass. The deadline for comments was 04.08.17. These proposals were regarded by the Group as bold and constructive and it was agreed that the Group should submit a letter of support; PB to prepare a first draft.

8.  Public Meeting for Residents 28.07.17: to be held in the Village Hall at 7.30pm. The purpose is to update residents on current planning issues. It will be jointly presented by the PC and NPSG, with SC in the chair. PY would organise display boards to show proposals for Fontwell Meadows, Tuppers Field, Welbeck and Arundel Bypass. She will explain the problem facing all parishes and ADC in meeting housing needs, a situation most volatile. PY, after contacting landowners, will be able to update the audience on proposals included in the NP and SC or ECC will briefly explain the situation regarding the sites mentioned above. PB will make general reference to the impact of development on the environment. SC will outline proposed action to defend the villages against this threats, but also remaining positive.

9.  Publicity: Parish News article in September will contain a resume of the Public Meeting on 29.07.17; the result of ADC's consideration of the Tuppers Field petition; the proposed review of the NP and an appeal for volunteers.

10.  Finance: It was noted that ADC was to set aside funds to assist parishes with reviews of NPs.

11.  Any Other Business:

a)  BP drew attention to recent articles in the national press warning that green spaces may need to yield to pressures for more housing.

b)  BP also reported the death of the owner of Binsted Manor; the PC planning committee should be alert.

12.  Date of next meeting: the next meeting will be a joint meeting with the WPC Planning Committee at 2.30pm on Tuesday 1 ^st August in the Pavillion. The next regular meeting will be held at The Holly Tree at 2.30pm on Thursday 7 ^th September.

The meeting closed at 4.25pm

1.  Apologies: Bill Langridge and Cllr Claire Lewis

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Youatt, Bob Rogers, Edmund Camerer Cuss, Ann Cannings, Bill Pethers, Peter Brown, John Kilford

Also in attendance: Parish Councillors Angela English, Richard Strickland; Andy Pepplar (Parish Clerk); Norman Dingemans, Paul Dendle, and Robert Wheal (our District Councillors). Later Nick Herbert MP attended with his Constituency Researcher

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 10 ^th July: were approved. A meeting had also been held jointly with the Parish Council's Planning Committee and the Clerk tabled the minutes of that meeting which will be kept with the minutes of this meeting.

3.  Matters arising from these two meetings as follows :

a)  Landspeed Housing Survey: SC reported that, despite general suspicion of the motives for the survey, it had produced some interesting information to which the Council will refer in future.

b)  Design Guide: JK and Sue Wallsgrove were in touch and work would soon commence.

c)  Sunny Corner: it was noted that the landowner was independently promoting a development there of nine individual dwellings.

d)  Ford Parish Neighbourhood Plan - Walberton's comments had been circulated and submitted

e)  The public meeting held in the Village Hall, attended by 250 parishioners, was considered to have met all its objectives in raising awareness of the complexity of the planning situation and the need for constant vigilance. Later in this meeting, subject to minor amendments, approval was given to an Email to go out to all residents concerning recent events.

4.  Local Plan update: ECC reported that the public examination would start on 19 ^th September; WPC had submitted a hearing statement and three members would speak. It was felt that the solution to the shortage of housing land proposed by ADC was unfair, inequitable and represented a direct threat to the integrity of all completed NPs. The Walberton NP could hardly be more up to date and should not be overturned; its current policies should only be changed through a formal review. ADC continued to identify new sites - including land west of Tye Lane - but this was not an acceptable approach to plan for sustainable development. It was noted that several residents had emailed about the field behind the Green being for sale. In Walberton it may be that a further 25 housing sites might be identified in a future review and yet HELAA seemed to suggest another 237 could be built in the parish. Such wild speculation does not help to bring a harmonious approach to a very difficult problem; furthermore, residents wishing to move may well find their sale blighted by the situation.

5.  Walberton Neighbourhood Plan - Review : the review cannot formally commence until the Government has published the new regulations; these will enable parishes to undertake a partial review without going through the whole process again. Any changes would naturally need full consultation. SC agreed that, while we wait, we should start to identify the issues needing review - possibly alongside looking at the community issues from the present NP that need action. Once these are identified, recruits can be invited to help with the tasks. She asked PB to consider the range of green issues to be addressed and to identify what extra expertise we need.

6.  Membership : Following SW's retirement from this Group, members were pleased to hear that Claire Lewis had agreed to be co-opted as a Parish Council delegate.

7.  Residents' Email - a draft was amended and approved for circulation. At this point Nick Herbert MP joined the meeting.

8.  Neighbourhood Plan reviews - legislation update - Mr Herbert advised that he had asked for further information on a likely date for this to be passed.

9.  Current Planning Applications : Nick Herbert, confirmed that he had asked for the applications relating to Tupper's Field and Barnfield House to be called in for determination by the Secretary of State. No response as yet but he would chase.

10.  A27 Arundel Bypass : At this point Nick Herbert MP joined the meeting. Highways England had recently started a period of consultation concerning the route of a proposed bypass:

•  Option 1 - broadly described as an on-line solution

•  Option 3 - very similar to the Pink/Blue route supported by many for 20 years cutting through woodland to the east of Havenwood

•  Option 5a - a long southern route avoiding much of the woodland in the South Downs National Park and seriously affecting Binsted.

A long discussion considered the merits and otherwise of the three routes. The Steering Group position was very clear in that they could not accept Route 5a as it was in direct conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan. It was likely that Arundel Town Council would similarly take exception to Option 1 as the town would still be divided by the A27. The adoption of Option 3 as a compromise route was made highly problematical due to the impact on the Ancient Woodland in the National Park.

Nick Herbert and the three District Councillors emphasised how important t was to try to get unanimous approach from the Parish/Town Councils, ADC and WSCC. It was thought the latter two were open to persuasion. Likewise the three District Councillors admitted they had not finally made up their minds, although Cllr Wheal was veering towards 5a and Cllr Dendle to 3. It was recognised that the Bypass is not just for the benefits of Arundel residents and there was a wider picture.

In Walberton there appeared to be a preference for Option 3 and there was some surprise that, although shorter, it was expected by H.E. to cost significantly more that Option 5a. Members felt there were ways in which the cost could be reduced, especially relating to the western junction and the suggested costs of mitigation to reduce the impact on Ancient Woodlands seemed exorbitant. It may be that local landowners would be supportive in finding a solution. If Option 5a was promoted, the impact on the peace and quiet of Binsted would be profound and incapable of effective mitigation; it would also attract an unsustainable increase in the traffic using Yapton Lane. It was on record that, the Landscape assessment undertaken to decide on the boundary of the National Park made it clear that the ancient agricultural landscape of Binsted was of equal quality to the area of woodland south of the present A27 Trunk Road.

Action in the immediate future would be an Email from the chairman to residents airing these issues, an informal meeting with Arundel Town Council and the development of ideas to improve an Option 3 solution.

Note was made that currently OneArundel supports 5a, Yapton Parish Council 3, ADC a combination of 3 and 5a, SDNP opposes all three. Bill tabled a possible amendment to Option 1 as submitted by a local architect.

SC thanked all the guests for their attendance and contributions. A date was not set for the next meeting.

Minutes of a meeting held at 2.30pm at The Holly Tree on Monday 19 ^th February 2018

1.  Apologies for absence: Bob Rogers, John KIlford (due to a sad family bereavement)

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Youatt, Ann Cannings, Bill Pethers, Edmund Camerer Cuss, Bill Langridge, Peter Brown, and Claire Lewis, who was welcomed to her first meeting.

2.  Minutes of the meeting held on 10 ^th July 217: were approved. There were no matters arising therefrom; it was noted that members had also attended joint meetings with members of the parish council, one of which concerned the proposed Arundel A27 bypass. SC confirmed the preferred route was due to be announced in March. BP reported on important errors in the public consultation documents, which may be subject to legal challenge.

3.  A.D.C's Local Plan: The examination in public has been completed and the examiner's report is expected soon. Numerous changes had been agreed during the hearings and it was hoped that the ADC would then make the plan in the next few weeks.

4.  Barnfield House and Tupper's Field call in by Secretary of State: No news other than to note that ADC officers had tried to stop the call-in process, without success.

5.  Regulations for the review of Neighbourhood Plans: these have been agreed but are not effective until made by the Government. It is envisaged that in future NPs will be reviewed on a five year cycle in parallel with Local Plan reviews.

6.  Funding: SC reported that a grant of £9,000 will be available and she was about to submit a bid for the first tranche of £3,500 available in April, to be spent within 6 months. The Parish Council was budgeting through the POP fund to be able supplement these funds as necessary to assist with any legal challenges.

7.  Review of Walberton NP: There was a general discussion as to which sections need to be reviewed and there was concern that little progress had been made on the Community Issues - PB was anxious that a viable cycle link between Walberton and Fontwell should be given high priority. SC promised that Schedule 2 will be on the WPC's early agenda.

It was generally felt that the introductory sections were still valid and we would not wish to change our vision or our core objectives. However, the narrative about the planning background will need amendment - especially as it relates to the new Local Plan. It would also be important to take into account the South Downs National Park's Local Plan: BP agreed to research progress and keep the Group up to date.

The principal area to be updated and reviewed would be the Housing Policies and PY/ECC would write to ADC to ascertain the correct dates for the assessment of housing numbers. PY also agreed to report to the next meeting as to likely progress of the housing proposals contained in our NP together with a review of sites in the HELAA as it applies to the parish. Otherwise other issues needing review were population statistics, 20 mph speed limits, education, public transport, health facilities, employment needs and the type of housing.

8.  Membership of the Steering Group: once we identify issues to be studied, sub groups may be recruited.

9.  Neighbourhood News: SC recommended that the next edition should be printed in early April and will cover: Annual Parish Meeting 15 ^th May; Precept; POP; Neighbourhood Plan Review; Updates on Barnfield House and Tupper's Field; Fontwell community building; Dandara; housing proposals for land west of Tye Lane; Post Office.

10.  Data Protection: new legislation will require positive response for all to be kept on the Email list.

11.  Any other Business:

a)  Tye Lane site: the owner had asked for a meeting -greed for 2pm on Thursday 19 ^th April in the Pavilion (NOTE now 1.45pm - see below)

b)  Welbeck owners also asked for a meeting - rejected

c)  SC asked all members to suggest what projects should be put forward for S.106 funding

d)  Arundel Bypass - BP asked that the wording in the NP needs amendment to iron out inconsistencies.

12.  SC would like to hear of progress on the Design Statement before the next WPC meeting

13.  Date of next meeting : Thursday 19 ^th April at 1.45pm in the Pavilion with the owners' agent for the land west of Tye Lane; at the close of that meeting, a normal agenda will continue after adjourning to the Holly Tree.

72 Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Minutes of a meeting held at 7pm on Thursday 1st March 2018 at The Holly Tree.

1. Apologies for Absence: Suzi Clark, Bob Rogers, Bill Pethers.
   Present: Peter Youatt (Vice Chairman), Peter Brown, Bill Langridge, Ann Cannings, John Kilford, Claire Lewis and Edmund Camerer Cuss.
2. PY confirmed that, following the Secretary of State’s decision not to “call in” the two Planning applications (Barnfield House WA/23/17/OUT; Tuppers Field WA/44/17/OUT), Arun District Council had now granted planning permission in both cases. Both applications were in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan and the purpose of this meeting was to consider what action could and should be taken. JK was adamant that the Group should be consistent in always supporting the policies contained in the NP and always opposing proposals that conflict with it.
3. The only remaining option to overturn these separate decisions was by way of Judicial Review. That is a process by which it is possible to challenge the lawfulness of a decision to grant planning permission and would be decided by a judge. It is important to acknowledge that a Judicial Review is only a review of lawfulness and process and does not constitute a rerun of the merits of the case.
4. BL pointed out that the Steering Group started with a target of providing 50 new homes and yet, taking into account Dandara, Tupper’s Field, Barnfield House and Wandleys Lane sites, we could be looking at 700 more houses in the Parish! He felt it should be possible to negotiate a limit. PY pointed out the importance of timing in relation to the making of the Neighbourhood Plan and the making of the new Arun District Local Plan; it was hoped the latter would be in place in a few weeks time. If a final decision on any of these controversial sites can be delayed, then the NP and LP would have more effective status.
5. PY recommended that the Steering Group should commission advice from Ashley Bowles – a barrister who has already helped the Parish Council on related matters – as to whether there are any grounds on which these decisions can be challenged through a Judicial Review. If so, he will also be asked to assess the likelihood of success. The fees for this preliminary advice is expected to be in the region of £1,600 + VAT. It was noted that such expenditure had been delegated to the Steering Group by WPC up to £10,000 p.a. It was noted that under the Terms of Reference from WPC to the NPSG if the advice is that there may be a case the matter would then pass to WPC in whose name any proceedings would be taken or threatened.
6. Members were all in agreement that the community would expect the Steering Group and WPC to do all it reasonably could to oppose these proposals which appear to undermine the integrity of the Walberton Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal was approved and the text of a letter was approved for immediate despatch. Ashley Bowes’s advice should be available within a week, when a further meeting may be necessary.

Minutes of a meeting held in the Pavilion at 4pm on Monday 26 ^th March 2018-03-26

1.  Apologies for absence: Suzi Clark, Bill Pethers, John Kilford, Edmund Camerer Cuss

Present: Peter Youatt (chairman of the meeting), Claire Lewis, Peter Brown, Bill Langridge, Bob Rogers, Ann Cannings.

2.  Minutes of the meetings held on 7 ^th June 2017 and1st March 2018: were approved.

3.  Judicial Reviews: PY explained that the purpose of this meeting was to consider the response of ADC to our challenge that the two planning consents relating to Barnfield House and Tupper's Field were flawed in law; and to consider Ashley Bowes' advice based on further information received. The procedure has to be completed within a very tight timescale and so it was very disappointing that at the time of this meeting, no response had been received from ADC.

There was considerable urgency to make decisions quickly - particularly as Easter weekend was imminent. It was agreed that members would hold themselves in readiness to engage in a conference call as follows:

5pm on Tuesday 27 ^th March at Farlings, Avisford Park Road

5pm on Wednesday 28 ^th March at The Pines, West Walberton Lane, or

5pm on Thursday 29 ^th March at Mallards, Eastergate Lane.

4.  Guidelines: There was a wide ranging discussion about how decisions would be made. Members were keen to win the case but acknowledged the dangers of losing, in terms of cost. Likewise, a pyrrhic victory to be quickly followed by a successful re-application was not attractive.

It was agreed to follow the suggested approach that if Ashley Bowes believes there is at least a 70% chance of winning at Tupper's Field and at least a 75% chance of winning at Barnfield House, we should consider pursuing the Judicial Review.

5.  Welbeck Site WA/17/2017: Members had been delighted to learn that this application relating to land off Wandleys Lane had been refused, largely on highways grounds.

6.  Dates of next meeting: on 27 ^th , 28 ^th or 29 ^th Match as above; thereafter Thursday 19 ^th April 2018.

74 Minutes of a meeting held at Mallards at 4.45pm on Thursday 29 ^th March 2018

1.  Apologies for absence: Peter Youatt, Edmund Camerer Cuss and Claire Lewis.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Bill Langridge, Bill Pethers, Ann Cannings, Peter Brown, John Kilford, Bob Rogers. Also present for part of the meeting via conference call were Ashley Bowes, barrister, and David Foster, solicitor.

2.  This was, in effect a continuation of the meeting of the 26 ^th March: SC reported that David Brocklebank, of the developers, Wates has asked for an urgent meeting with the Parish Council and with the Steering Group and that meeting was to take place on the morning of Tuesday 3 ^rd April (this Group to be represented by PY and BL and WPC by SC and CL). The speculation is that he is very concerned about the potential loss his firm would incur if the Judicial Review goes to court as it would result in a considerable delay in the development, even if the action was unsuccessful.

3.  Barnfield House application: The grounds for taking this decision to Judicial Review were discussed with our legal team and the case was not strong enough to be confident of victory and not without risk. It was unanimously agreed that no further action should be taken, with the result that this development, despite being contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan will now take place.

4.  Tuppers Field: A response had been received from Arun District Council less than an hour before this meeting. ADC confirmed that it would oppose a Judicial Review; there were three items to be considered:

a)  In the response the Council had conceded that it had failed to properly deal with the need for a screening opinion as to the likely impact of the development of 175 houses in a sensitive part of the parish. At the same time it stated that if they had done so, it would make no difference to the decision to grant planning permission. Ashley Bowes advised that the parish has a strong case and suggested there would be a 70% chance of success.

b)  ADC had considered that it was not appropriate to refer to planning policy GEN 3 in the Local Plan as it was out of date. Ashley said that recent case law showed that to be wrong, but with the new Local Plan on the horizon, the chance of success here would be no better than 50%.

c)  ADC did not agree that the impact on the Grade 2 listed Avisford Park should have been considered in more depth. Again, it was not a strong case and success was not rated above 50%.

5.  Decisions and Action: With a confidence level of 70%, in principle the Steering Group felt the judicial Review should proceed to the next step. Accordingly it was agreed nem. con that Ashley Bowes, at an initial cost of £3,200, should be instructed to proceed with the drafting of the formal paperwork this weekend, ready for the solicitor to complete the claim form for submission which would have to be submitted no later than Friday 6 ^th April. WPC and NP need to make their decision on proceeding by Tuesday evening 3 ^rd April. Another meeting would be necessary to make that final decision as to whether to submit it. Once submitted, costs would escalate and, although ADC had conceded that our costs would be capped, under the Aarhus convention, the final decision would be down to the judge. There was continued concern that £40,000 could be spent on a case that could be won and yet, almost certainly, that would be followed by a new application when the previous errors would be ironed out by Wates and ADC - a pyrrhic victory: a short delay would be a poor return on the expenditure.

6.  Meeting with Wates: It appeared that Wates were keen to avoid a delay on their development and so the Group wanted to avoid the disappointment of achieving nothing. Previously action had been focussed on opposing the development; however, if the development is to go ahead, the present proposals are far from ideal: both the layout and the financial settlement under the Section 106 agreement were highly unsatisfactory. The Parish Council had asked for a total of £248,000 towards work on the Pavilion, car park, tennis court and village hall - all to accommodate the increased population; in the event only £32,400 would be forthcoming. Ashley suggested ensuring that any compromise with Wates should include our costs and that any extra monies should be negotiated on a private basis between Wates and WPC. A deed of variation is possible on a s106, but only with the agreement of all parties, and checks should be made on what matters are reserved in the decision. The meeting on 3 ^rd April may open a door to an improved scheme.

7.  Date of next meeting: at Mallards at 5pm on Tuesday 3 ^rd April 2018 (the meeting with Wates will have taken place that morning). WPC councillors are invited to attend.

Minutes of a meeting held at The Pines at 5pm on Tuesday 3 ^rd April 2018

1.  Apologies: Claire Lewis

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Bob Rogers, Peter Youatt, Bill Langridge, Ann Cannings, John Kilford, Bill Pethers and Peter Brown

Also present : Parish Councillors Marc Mitchell and Richard Strickland and Parish Clerk Andy Pepplers; and, representing Wates Residential Developments, David Brocklebank, Nick Kilby and Will McLaren-Clark.

2.  Introduction: SC explained that two meetings had taken place earlier in the day at Wates' request with representatives of the Steering Group and Walberton Parish Council to discuss the possible submission of a claim for Judicial Review and to also review the proposed implementation of the development of Tuppers Field for residential development. The Parish Council had been unhappy about several aspects of the proposed scheme and also felt there was inadequate compensation provided in the S.106 agreement to ameliorate the impact of the extra housing on the village environment.

3.  Wates' new proposals: DB explained that Wates has an outline consent for up to 175 dwellings and the next stage was to use the indicative layout as a basis for the detailed scheme. He was keen to open dialogue with the community to ensure that, as far as possible, Tuppers Field would provide the housing needed and overall would be a positive addition to the village. He agreed that the present layout was capable of improvement and, following meetings earlier in the day was prepared to make a commitment along the following lines:

•  The edge of the development would be realigned to lessen the impact of the development on the playing field and school grounds.

•  The land immediately north of the football pitch will, subject to planning permission, be equipped with two tennis courts and then the freehold transferred to WPC; WPC would also receive a commuted sum of circa £50,000 to cover future maintenance. Wates would make the planning application.

•  Wates will, through WPC, discuss the detailed types of dwelling to be built: e.g. provision of smaller bungalows for locals wishing to downsize.

DB made clear that these proposals were over and above his obligations under the S.106 agreement. The other green spaces would be vested in a management company whose shareholders would be the new residents and that company would be responsible for maintenance using its annual income from residents. JK was concerned that the design of the housing should aim to integrate the housing into the village and not create barriers; Wates should remember this is a village. To achieve a good result, continuous dialogue would be helpful with some reference to the emerging design statement for Walberton. Wates would be responsible for building the affordable housing which would then be transferred to a Housing Association.

DB said that his team were working towards completing a series of statutory tasks, including a final layout plan and a construction programme, with a view to starting work on the ground early in 2019. He confirmed to PB that he would be talking to the management of the golf club to discuss treatment of the boundary and drainage issues. BP raised everyone's concern about the impact of the extra traffic on Yapton Lane; DB was unable to offer any reassurance, explaining that both ADC and WSCC had been satisfied with the proposals.

At this point the Wates representatives left the meeting.

4.  Judicial Review: Before a decision was taken, PY explained that if a claim for JR were to be submitted, that in itself would not stop the development - i.e. Wates would continue with design work and, in due course, start work on the ground. Work would only be stopped if through the JR process the planning consent was quashed - by which time some houses might have been started. Members recognised that in that case, a new planning application would almost certainly be successful and the expenditure on legal fees would merely have achieved a delay. DB had suggested to an earlier meeting that he would prefer to spend £200,000 on improvements that would benefit the village rather than on the services of lawyers.

SC calculated that £6,800 has so far been spent on the JR process; if the next stage was completed a further £4,000 would be spent. She then took a vote as to whether WPC should continue and make a submission : votes were 1 in favour and 7 against. The Parish Councillors and the Parish Clerk in attendance were in agreement.

5.  Action: SC expected to receive a letter from DB on the morrow confirming his commitments. AC will ensure an article will appear in the next Parish News and SC will send it out on the residents' Email list. SC will also inform the appointed lawyers and thank them for their work and advice. The topic will doubtless be aired at the Annual Parish Meeting.

6.  Finance: SC was about to bid for a Neighbourhood grant of £4,000 plus from ADC

7.  Neighbourhood Plan Review: PY will contact the owners of land scheduled for development under the current NP and report back to the next full meeting; he will also draft letters to other landowners.

8.  Date of next meetings:

Thursday 19 ^th April at 1.45pm in the Pavilion - one item: to meet Henry Adams, Chartered Surveyors representing owners of land west of Tye Lane

Next main meeting: 2.30pm on Monday 23 ^rd April in the Pavilion

Minutes of a meeting held at The Pavilion at 1.45pm on Thursday 19 April 2018

(in the interests of clarity similar points have sometimes been noted in the same paragraph regardless of the order in which they were raised during the meeting)

1. Apologies: Peter Brown, John Kilford, Bill Pethers and Bob Rogers.

2. Present:

Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group (NPSG):

Suzi Clark (SC) (chairman), Ann Cannings, Edmund Camerer-Cuss Bill Langridge, Claire Lewis and Peter Youatt.

Walberton Parish Council (WPC):

Richard Moores and Richard Strickland.

Henry Adams (HA):

David Adams (DA), Martin Curry and Peter Cleveland .

3. SC introduced those present and welcomed everybody explaining that this was a meeting of the NPSG and not a formal meeting of the WPC.

4. DA began by saying that HA had been instructed by Michael Langmead to explore the possibility of developing 7.6 hectares west of Tye Lane for housing. He showed a plan of the land; an illustrative plan of a possible layout of the site and some drawings prepared by architects Scott Worsfold. DA confirmed no developer is involved yet and that Michael Langmead intends to take any application to planning himself.

5. He emphasised that HA understood the anxieties of the Parish and particularly those residents immediately adjacent to the site with whom they had had preliminary, and would have further, meetings. He referred to the paradox between Government pressure and local resistance on development and his company's awareness of issues such as infrastructure and design. He was anxious to work openly with the WPC and residents. Various specialists have been instructed on:

  traffic and access which DA confirmed will only be from Tye Lane for vehicles with only pedestrian and cycle access from The Street via Field Close. Counts are being done and junctions etc. investigated. There will be an emergency access from the road to the North serving the industrial units at the point of the present field gate. DA emphasised in response to questions that if access is a problem the scheme will be adjusted down and that no second vehicular access would be considered.

  ground investigation and drainage. Arthur Haffenden has provided background information, particularly regarding a North / South ditch over the land that had been infilled and not culverted, and trial pits have been dug but DA was not able to provide any real information at this stage regarding water run off from the site or whether it could be dealt with on site. The illustrative ponds on the plan and drawings were no more than that at this stage.

  ecological issues trees etc.

6. They are currently considering between 125 and 150 units on the site. They accept that none should be more than two storeys on the edge of the village'. Those present expressed their horror at the numbers proposed, the prospect of an urban sprawl' and their surprise that the owner's attitude seemed to be s many as the site could take'. The points were made that Wates had obtained permission for a lower number on Tuppers Field than some had thought attainable and that this land is shown for 91 in HELAA .

7. The provision of bungalows to the south of the site and of affordable housing on the site with emphasis on being available for local people was discussed. Mention was also made of retirement flats. HA were referred to Landspeed and its recent survey and on the question of affordable housing the question of whether if development took place Mr Langmead might consider giving land for a Community Land trust scheme was also mooted.

8.. HA are anticipating continuing to meet with residents most closely affected, to continue their investigations and then to ask to meet again. They are hoping to be ready to discuss further, and then to approach ADC for a pre-app discussion, by the end of the summer.

9. Considerable concern regarding any development was expressed by all from the NPSG and WPC with numbers, access, traffic, infrastructure (medical and educational facilities) being particularly mentioned, but HA were thanked for coming to discuss the situation and agreed to keep in touch.

77 Minutes of a meeting held at The Pavilion at 2.30pm on Monday 23 ^rd April 2018

1.  Apologies for absence: Bob Rogers, John Kilford

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Youatt, Claire Lewis, Ann Cannings, Bill Pethers and Peter Brown.

2.  Minutes of the meetings held on 29 ^th March and 19 ^th April: were approved.

3.  Matters arising: it was noted that in the cases of Barnfield House and Tupper's Field, it had been decided not to proceed with an application for Judicial Review. A small consolation was that the final layout and delivery of the development at Tupper's Field should be improved and should draw some benefits for the village community.

Land west of Tye Lane: CL referred to the confusion over the housing numbers being proposed and PY pointed out that a larger area was being put forward and CL calculated that in fact the proposed density would be similar to Tupper's Field. It was agreed that it was not appropriate to share PY's minutes of that meeting with Messrs Henry Adams.

4.  First Review of the Neighbourhood Plan:

a)  Community Issues implementation: SC explained that these tasks were to be tackled by WPC through the Planning and General Purposes Committees.

b)  Housing Policies: the original task had been to find sites for 50 dwellings in the parish; in contrast, close to 500 units are likely to be built over the next 25 years; further housing is being proposed in areas contrary to the NP but vulnerable until such time as the Arun DC Local Plan is in place. Thus the whole planning background has changed and needs to be thoroughly understood before policies for the new NP can be drafted. SC recommended that an early meeting be sought with Donna Moles and Norman Dingeman to ensure the Group was working on a sound footing.

In a wider discussion, PB pointed out that the NP is a development plan - not just housing. Faced with a substantial growth in population, the review should consider if services are adequate to meet the community's needs - e.g. health, shops, cycle tracks, infrastructure, etc. The task is going to be substantial and help will be required.

5.  Recruitment: Following the projected meeting with ADC, it will be necessary to identify tasks, some of which may need specialist knowledge: this might be obtained by setting up some discreet working groups. Volunteers may be invited at the Annual Parish Meeting.

6.  Neighbourhood News: SC tabled the draft text and illustrations for the next edition which is due to be delivered from 4 ^th to 6 ^th May.

7.  Finance: SC reported that her application for a grant of £7275 to be spent by 31 ^st March 2019 had been approved and that a further £1725 should be available in April 2019. Our recent challenges have so far cost about £8,000 from the Pop Fund; currently there is a balance of £13,000 in hand.

8.  Annual Parish Meeting: PY and PB regretted they would be absent. It would be necessary to carefully explain the recent challenges and so point the way forward.

9.  Any other business:

•  BP reported that Highways England was continuing to carry out environmental surveys and the announcement of the preferred route for the A27 Arundel Bypass was not expected soon.

•  Yapton Lane level crossing: a public meeting was imminent to discuss the proposal to install gates. Network Rail estimate traffic at 8,000 vehicle movements per day based on actual surveys - considerably more than Highways England's estimates .

10.  Date of next meeting : There will be a small group meeting to discuss the Annual Meeting. The next full meeting will follow the projected meeting with Donna Moles and Norman Dingemans during the week commencing 21 ^st May.

The meeting closed at 4.25pm

78 Minutes of a meeting held at Mallards at 2pm on Tuesday 4 ^th September 2018

1.  Apologies for absence: John Kilford and Bill Pethers.

Present: Suzi Clark, Bill Langridge, Ann Cannings, Peter Youatt, Claire Lewis, Bob Rogers and Peter Brown. Attending the meeting as observers were Andrew Ratcliffe ( new Parish Councillor) and Mike Davis, who were welcomed by the chairman.

2.  Minutes of the meeting held on 23 ^rd April were approved; it was noted that £7,000 is in hand to fund the review of the NP and must be committed by April 2019.

3.  Arun Local Plan: this important document was finally adopted on 18 ^th July 2018; SC explained that it should give some better protection against unwelcome proposals and was relevant to current issues, such as the Welbeck appeal. She suggested that the following NP matters could be addressed now:

•  The Review of the Walberton Conservaton Area boundaries and policies was an important matter and needs to make progress so it can be incorporated into a revise NP. WPC were asked to press Martyn White for an early public consultation.

•  Assets of Community Value: these were listed in the NP, but, sadly, we have already lost the Post Office and the village stores in Fontwell. It was agreed that PY would check the titles and the covenant, if any, affecting the Holly Tree and WPC will be asked to make the necessary application to ADC.

•  Housing Sites: It was agreed that the Steering Group would continue to support the current NP but that part of the NP review will be to monitor the delivery of the housing promoted in the NP through contact with the owners.

•  Nothing further has been heard from Crayfern Homes acting for the owners of the land at the rear of Woodcroft, West Walberton Lane(Policy HP5) since they wrote in April 2018. They are now proposing eight dwellings (not 2). It was agreed to await a next move from them.

Recent activity had included a meeting of Parish Clerks on 15 ^th June and the issue by ADC of a document on the Methodology for distributing the housing figures. The latter document explained that the delivery of some 1,250 houses per annum would be provided through a selection process of identifying large strategic sites and smaller sites - at least in part drawing from local NPs. The Group believe the approach to be deeply flawed and generally agreed with and supported a draft response prepared by former member, Edmund Camerer Cuss. The Group requested that WPC send ADC ECC's draft but accompanied by a short bullet point resume. The principal areas for concern were:

a)  The over- reliance on the HELAA list of possible sites, many of which had already been discounted as undevelopable.

b)  The ambiguity regarding the base date for new housing numbers: the Group was clear that this should be April 2017 - not 2018 - so that major new developments, such as Barnfield House and Tuppers Field, would be credited.

Another meeting of Parish Clerks and Councillors was to take place on 3 ^rd October, which SC, PY and AR will attend.

4.  Land east of Wandley's Lane (Welbeck): WPC had drafted a response to the planning appeal, which would be placed on the WPC website after it had been finalised at the WPC planning meeting that evening. A small subcommittee of the Planning Committee would deal with the greater detail. It was noticed that ADC had said, wrongly, that an environmental impact assessment was not necessary.

5.  Land west of Tye Lane: members had met the agent for this land at an informal meeting in the spring. The proposal is quite contrary to the NP and yet appears on the HELAA list. Although the owner had been encouraged to explore possibilities by ADC, the owner knows it will be strongly opposed if taken further. A follow-up letter had been received by WPC to which at this stage it was agreed that no response was required.

6.  Tupper's Field: A public consultation at the Pavilion on revised layout plans had been well attended; the changes were generally welcomed, but there are major concerns concerning foul drainage, surface water drainage and safety relating to the Golf Course. The WPC Planning Committee would be putting in a detailed list of issues to be resolved. The Group asked that the WPC write direct to Southern Water asking what proposals it might have to cope with the extra demand here and, indeed, elsewhere in the parish.

7.  A27 Arundel Bypass : the entire consultation headed by Highways England had been widely discredited and was the subject of two applications for Judicial Review: by Emma Tristram and by the South Downs National Park Authority. Despite the importance of environmental issues, these challenges were about whether the process had been flawed to the point of unlawfulness. MD led a detailed discussion of the flaws in the process, of great concern was the evidence that HE, WSCC and ADC had decided on their choice before the public consultation began - particularly as Arundel Town Council were party to discussions at a very early stage, while WPC and Walberton residents had been ignored. There were also many flaws in the technical aspects and the assessment of the impact on local roads seemed to change with the weather and the relative cost benefits of the alternative schemes continually changes . WPC initially intend allocating up to £10,000 towards the A27 Project to protect Walberton Parish from this harmful proposal.

The proposed Judicial Reviews will delay the progress of the Bypass and the Judge is likely to make a decision in October as to whether a case may go to court. Otherwise, HE expects the formal consultation on their proposals to take place in February 2019. The Steering Group agreed that a letter from the WPC direct to the Secretary of State would emphasise local concerns and MD offered to assist in the drafting of such a letter.

BR reported that HE wanted to discuss a redesign of the junction between Yapton Lane and the A27 - known as the western tie in. Any discussion should be on a Without Prejudice basis to make it clear that WPC are not siding with HE's proposals. BL warned that if WPC believes it should support the JR financially, it must be prepared to see it through PY pointed out that so far response to the POP Fund had been disappointing and a strong appeal will be necessary to every resident.

8.  Any other business:

a)  Neighbourhood News: next issue to be deferred until November.

b)  Andrew Ratcliffe confirmed he was prepared to become a member of the Steering Group, to everyone's pleasure. Mike Davis will make his decision in due course, but may prefer to be a member of a specific A27 subcommittee.

c)  On his retirement, the Steering Group asked the Secretary to thank Edmund Camerer Cuss sincerely for his great contribution to the work of the steering Group.

9.  Date of next meeting: to be at The Pines at 2pm on Monday 8 ^th October. SC would arrange a separate meeting for the Steering Group to meet with Donna Moles of ADC, together with Cllr. Norman Dingemans, preferably prior to the meeting of parishes due on the 3 ^rd October.

The meeting closed at 4.25pm

79 Minutes of a meeting held at The Pines West Walberton Lane at 2pm on Monday 8th October 2018

1.  Apologies for absence : Peter Brown and John Kilford.

Present: Suzi Clark, Andrew Ratcliffe, Ann Cannings, Bill Pethers, Bill Langridge, Claire Lewis and Peter Youatt. Bob Rogers joined the meeting part way through. Kevin Owen, Arun District Council's Planning Policy & Conservation Team leader attended part of the meeting and was welcomed by the chairman.

2.  Meeting with Donna Moles on 24th September and Meeting of Parishes on 23rd October. (a note previously circulated by PY was noted)

  SC introduced KO and opened the discussion by emphasising that the Parish is not taking a NImby' attitude to development and has agreed to revise the NP.

  SC noted that ADC has already moved on its methodology and is now allowing small sites to be counted towards allocations. Permissions have been granted for a number of units including 400 on the Dandara site (which, although some are technically in Eastergate parish, will inevitably consider themselves as part of the Parish) and 175 on Tuppers' Field an increase of over 50% in the Parish as a whole. This gives considerable concern on the adequacy of the available infrastructure on particularly medical, transport and educational issues.

  Members put several questions to KO and in a full discussion the following points were made:

  a. Infrastructure sustainability. ADC's infrastructure delivery plan identifies what is needed across the area based on their housing trajectory. It has for example identified the need for schools but KO acknowledged that the location of those schools has not been decided and ADC's approach is to look at hot spots' rather than to plan ahead on the basis that new housing will inevitably increase population and the need for schools and other infrastructure and plan accordingly.

b. Infrastructure provision. KO suggested that it was essential for all parishes who wish to influence infrastructure provision to provide evidence of the needs that would inevitably arise in the parish. KO acknowledged that this has not in anyway been apportioned into the methodology for the distribution of the 1250 houses across the area.

c. Allocation. KO emphasised that any attempt by the Parish to remove or reduce the allocation of 60 already put forward would need to be evidence based and that the number should be tested against sustainability and then a proposal put to ADC that the allocation should be Y and not X. He advised that the parish obtained evidence by consulting with those who would be responsible to deliver the infrastructure and with ADC itself who would have some of the figures. In response to the point that new housing would inevitably have a snowball effect on the population in the parish KO indicated that ADC were working on population figures taken forward for 20 years.

  d. Collection of evidence. KO suggested:

i. speaking to Donna regarding the availability of grant funds. SC confirmed that WPC has funds available,

  ii. looking at the evidence base behind the Local Plan,

  iii. questioning ADC on specific areas,

  iv. commissioning consultants,

  v. looking at ADC and WSCC websites both of which contain figures.

e. C I L. KO confirmed that under the regulations, which the government may amend, although there is an obligation that development meets the impact on infrastructure caused by it through 106 agreements nevertheless in health (and other matters) an individual offsite facility, such as a doctor surgery, cannot receive more than 5 contributions from different developments.

KO confirmed that a report has been prepared for the relevant subcommittee and that it is intended to bring C I L into force as soon as possible as it will not be imposed on developers retrospectively. He confirmed that on strategic sites there will be a zero charge other than on highways. C I L will be levied at £5 per sq. m., adding approximately £2-3k per house. Those parish councils not preparing neighbourhood plans will get 15% of C I L and those preparing neighbourhood plans will get 20%. It will be spendable at the PC's discretion. There will be a full public consultation in November if the Council agrees and then an Examination by an inspector to check that what is proposed will be viable. Although the current estimate is that C I L will not be in place until 2019/20 this is being looked at by KO's committee as it might be possible to go straight to the Examination.

f. Small sites. KO confirmed that ADC would now allow credit for, for example, 6 houses on the Poland site and that the Parish would be well advised to consider carefully an interim position on the Neighbourhood Plan land supply which would be taken through the consultation process for the revised Neighbourhood Plan but to provide intelligence on this to ADC on an informal basis in confidence on Chatham House terms and ADC would recognise this on any planning applications that may be put in before the revision is complete. See below.

  g. Rural exception sites. ADC has not changed its position and the starting point is to identify housing needs. Again KO stressed the need for an evidence based assessment. Mention was made of Community Land Trust housing as a useful mechanism and Entry Level housing which provides a new way to provide homes under NPPF. [See Bidwell's note attached to these minutes for detail.]

h. Methodology. KO confirmed that Methodology is on the Agenda of the Local Plan sub-committee for 16th October. It will be finalised in January. KO will report to the meeting on 16th October but this should be regarded as a starting place and it could change in January by which time any evidence and the confidential interim list should have been lodged with him. KO commented that sustainability and Strategic sites can be in conflict and there is a need to look at phasing of the infrastructure delivery and to take in to account the cumulative effect on infrastructure of both strategic and non- strategic sites. Small sites are those of less than one hectare.

  i. SDNP. Any sites within the SDNP do not count towards DPD allocations.

  j. Open Space consultation. This relates to the provision of open spaces at a rate of half an hectare per thousand of population. It is not relevant to gaps such as the strategic gaps between settlements. It is an open consultation but without examination.

  k. Delivery of infrastructure. KO indicated that some may be required, eg, roads providing access before occupation is permitted. Other will be phased as development proceeds. The serious need for further underground infrastructure was acknowledged.

  SC thanked KO for his comments and for attending the meeting.

  The Agenda was the resumed by reference to the Agenda numbers as follows:

5. Minutes of the meeting held on 4th September were approved.

6. Matters arising.

  SC reported that Martyn White was now back on Conservation matters 2 days per week. She will arrange a meeting with him in the week commencing 11th November having checked that PB will be available.

  Community Assets. It was agreed after discussion that of those listed in the NP (Schedule 6 pp.48/9) only 5, Hunters Mews Play Area and 6, Orchard Crescent Green Fontwell would be carried forward in the revision.

7. Review of NP.

  It was agreed that the immediate concentration would be on the interim site list KO had suggested. The paper updating the position on sites previously circulated by PY was considered and it was agreed that he should write to landowners to obtain an update on their intentions. A Newsletter would contain a call for sites. The next meeting will be specifically to consider the review of the NP.

8. Rights of way.

  PB will be asked to consider and report to next meeting.

9. Finance.

  SC reported that there is £6357 in hand to be spent by 31 March 2019.

10 AOB.

  Publicity.

  It was agreed that the question of why plan for 60 and get 500' needed a positive answer to residents. Something would be put in the Parish magazine and a Newsletter to all homes would be sent out in November/December.

  A Questionnaire would be prepared and BR agreed to consider this ahead of the next meeting. This might go out in February /March following the NN in November/ December and an Open Day in January. Maureen Chaffe would be asked to be involved once a first draft has been considered. It would include questions on the A27 asking for choices between the routes.

  Traffic.  This was raised as a problem for further consideration.

11. Future meetings.

  Neighbourhood News Group (SC:AC:CL:PY) 2.00pm 22 October - Mallards.

  SG 2.00pm 2 November - The Pines.

'

  '

'

'

'

'

''

'

80 - Minutes of a meeting held on 2nd November 2018 at The Pines at 3.30pm

1.  Apologies for absence: Claire Lewis, Bill Langridge, and Bob Rogers.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Ann Cannings, Peter Youatt, John Kilford, Bill Pethers, Andrew Ratcliffe, Peter Brown.

2.  Minutes of the meeting held on 8 ^th October 2018: were approved.

3.  Matters arising:

a)  SC reported that the last meeting, with ADC present, was most valuable and should stand the Group in good stead going forward.

b)  Conservation Area: SC would endeavour to fix a meeting with Martyn White and parish councillors, as soon as possible - to which all would be welcome. JK was also keen to meet with Martyn with the subgroup to discuss the Design Statement.

c)  Traffic in Walberton Village: The Parish Council had now started the process to apply for a TRO for a 20mph maximum speed limit through the village, with the support of our WSCC councillor. Good evidence will be needed to support the case.

d)  Neighbourhood News No. 9 had been drafted and would challenge residents to support the Review and contribute. There will be reports on the success of the weekly Post Office, on why the Review is necessary, on the need for new sites to be appraised and an update on current planning matters and the A27. The WalBinFont Facebook now had over 600 followers.

e)  PB reported on the concept of a Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan for the parish; one had been drafted some years ago but he felt it should be reviewed as part of the NP Review, which would also help to ensure countryside access was taken into account as the planning of the Arundel Bypass proceeds. Such a Plan would review the condition and adequacy of the existing network of paths, spell out the needs of residents and would list necessary improvements. Such a document would strengthen the Parish Council when bidding for funds derived from new development - both S.106 agreements and through the use of CILs. Members were quick to accept PB's offer to set up a small group to address this task.

f)  Monitoring the developments deriving from the NP: PY tabled an update of his previous report. He would be in touch with all those landowners. Our new Neighbourhood News would also ask other landowners if they want to suggest areas of their land for appraisal. He would initially like to arrange a meeting with two landowners: the National Trust and Sussex Business Park. A meeting with the owners of Wandleys Farm may be appropriate later.

General discussion touched on whether the parish can be described as sustainable in view of the lack of public transport and viable cycle tracks. At the last meeting, the ADC representative, Kevin Owens, seemed to accept that the parish might be able to make a case that the suggested target of 60 additional dwellings should be reduced.

4.  Review of the Neighbourhood Plan: SC had circulated a schedule of sections that need to be reviewed and brought up to date. Overall there was a hope that the volume of text could be reduced without losing the key facts on which policies would be based. Schedules 1 and 3 are obsolete. A number of details were examined which showed that an early start should be made on the redrafting as time will be tight; Maureen Chaffe will be invited to the next meeting. Specific actions:

a)  BP to revisit his contacts and content of community and education

b)  AC will start to redraft Fontwell

c)  PB will contact MAVES to u pdate environmental information

5.  Funding: SC confirmed funds in hand were sufficient for the N News and a start on the Review. Any unspent money at the end of the financial year can be reapplied.

6.  Open Day: This will be on Saturday 26 ^th January, when all members will be needed. Several meeting will be needed in the interim and all members were asked to let PB know when they will be away through to April. Away dates in November: PY 14-16, AR 15-16, PB 19-21, SC 6-8, AC 27.

7.  Any other business:

a)  NN No. 10 will be in March accompanying the Questionnaire and highlighting achievements. BR to work with Maureen on the design of the Questionnaire which will be digitally processed. The housing needs section will be much briefer than before, subject to clarification with ADC (PY to enquire).

b)  ADC are arranging a meeting about green infrastructure on 22.11.18: CL and AR will represent WPC and PB to represent this Group

c)  JK hopes to make a practical start on the Design Guide: PY would ask ADC to provide large scale maps for that purpose.

d)  PB asked if the Local Green Spaces in the NP were now protected and shown on development control maps at ADC? PY will enquire at a coming meeting with Donna Moles.

e)  Members wishes to record their appreciation to BL for the use of The Pines for this meeting.

8.  Date of next meeting: 2.30pm on Friday 7 ^th December - location to be confirmed.

Meeting ended at 5.35pm

81 - Minutes of a meeting held at Connest on 7 ^th December 2018 at 2pm

1.  Apologies for absence: Bill Pethers, Peter Youatt

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Bill Langridge, Peter Brown, Ann Cannings, Andrew Ratcliffe, Claire Lewis and John Kilford.

2.  Wandley's Farm: the landowners, Mr and Mrs Lillywhite joined the meeting for this item. In the preparation of the 1st edition of the NP, their proposed development was not recommended - the prime reasons were that the land was outside the Built UP Area Boundary and it was not brown field land. ADC also declined to approve it as a Rural Exception Site in the original NP negotiations. However, the owners wanted to put it forward again as a Rural Exception Site and had recently applied for planning consent. They felt the development was justified by them proposing the provision of four affordable units which could be earmarked specifically for those who qualified for a local connection. The affordable housing in Tuppers Field and Fontwell Meadows could not be reserved for local people. The affordable housing officer at ADC had supported the proposal in May 2018 but the support was ignored on a change of staffing. The proposal had been refused consent and was now to go to appeal.

SC regretted that Mr and Mrs Lillywhite felt let down by the system and carefully explained why the land had not been chosen for development in the NP and JK explained how careful the Group had to be not to undermine the philosophy of the Plan.

The Steering Group could not promise a change in approach but it was hoped that the owners now fully understood the situation. At this stage (3.05pm), the Lillywhites left. PB pointed out that the situation is now very different to 3 years ago as there will soon be well over 100 affordable homes in the parish, although there is no legal force to allocate any to local people. He suggested WPC might be able to come to an informal agreement with the relevant Housing Associations. (At this point Maureen Chaffe was welcomed back to the fold).

3.  Minutes of the meeting held on 2 ^nd November: were approved. AC congratulated all responsible for the latest edition of Neighbourhood News.

4.  Matters Arising:

a)  No contact had been made with Martyn White - PB was asked to make contact to discover whether the review of the Conservation Areas was imminent. It was agreed that we could put the proposed new areas in to our NP review subject to Martyn providing us with the appropriate maps.

b)  SC reported that the petition in favour of a 20mph limit through the village had been launched

c)  PB reported a working group was being assembled to conduct a review of public rights of way in the parish

d)  PB was able to report that he had met with MAVES who were happy to help to ensure the environmental contents of the NP were up to date and would offer constructive advice. MC applauded the fact that they had suggested the approach of green biodiversity corridors through the parish should be examined and then fed into the Design Guide. Later in the meeting MC recommended I RECORD App for regular monitoring of wildlife - it is favoured by Sussex Wildlife Trust.

e)  PY had received assurance from Donna Moles of ADC that the Local Green Spaces proposed by the NP were protected without the need for any further paperwork. However, it was important that in the revised NP, maps should show the location and extent of the LGSs.

5.  Review of the Neighbourhood Plan:

AR had circulated his assessment of likely future population figures and PY had provided a note of recent meetings with the National Trust and the Sussex Business Park. These items may be discussed at the next meeting.

MC explained that a number of policies could be affected by new interpretations of the legislation. She recommended that only essential changes should be made in the policies, although improving the descriptive introductory sections would be beneficial. Where no change is necessary policies would be labelled Saved Policies ; those with minor corrections Amended Policies ; leaving only the New Policies to be subject to forensic examination. She recommended members to look online at two recent local examples: Ford and Arundel.

The number of extra houses needed is problematic and the WPC is arguing that, in view of the 600 odd houses expected, Walberton should only be asked to identify a very small number - the current ADC target is 60. MC thought it might be possible to claim that some may be achieved through organic growth. She thought that the Survey did not need to include a housing needs set of questions as it would not meet the requirements for future use.

MC agreed to suggest a new biodiversity set of policies based on recent new versions; she would also identify suitable retained policies in the NP. She recommended that the embryonic Design Guide should form part of the NP (as at West Chiltington). Similarly, it could include a proposal to extend the boundaries of the Conservation Areas - as Martyn White is proposing. JK reported that his small Design working group were starting to look at Landscape Character Areas. All members were asked to look at what changes may be necessary following this discussion.

The Questionnaire was due to be delivered in March/April; consideration will be given to including questions about travel and work and which local surgery is used. There was also discussion as to whether there should be a question asking for choices between the options for the A27 Arundel Bypass; MC questioned whether that would be strictly relevant to the NP Review, although WPC could do a separate concurrent survey to go out in the same envelope. BR referred to various options being considered by Highways England and WSCC to provide viable links between the A259 and the A27; the choice would have a major impact on travel numbers on Yapton Lane.

BR will coordinate the design of the Questionnaire; he asked everyone to let him have their suggestions of questions - probably fewer than last time.

6.  Open Day on 26 ^th January: this will be a main topic next time when exact arrangements and what displays will be needed. The event will be in the Pavilion from 10.00 to 3pm.

7.  Green Infrastructure: CL had circulated a note of a meeting at ADC when LUC Consultants had been commissioned to develop ideas to establish a permanent green corridor from the coast to the downs.

8.  Any Other Business:

a)  MC/SC reported that ADC's new CIL was now out for consultation.

b)  A meeting was to be held from 11.00 on 13.12.18 with Dandara to look at final draft plans for the development of Fontwell Meadows in the Pavilion.

c)  A new system to store NP documents had been introduced by ADC and WPC must use it: SHAREPOINT

d)  MC confirmed that Community Land Trusts can own more than one site and do not need to be in just one parish.

9.  Date of Next meeting: 1.30pm on Monday 14 ^th January 2019 at Mallards

10.  Choice of Sites: (BL left the meeting at his point) PY had received a number of suggestions from various landowners for new building sites and these would be displayed at the Open Day. Two late proposals (quite separate) had been received by two members of the Steering Group : BL and BP. Clearly they need to be treated like any other proposal and neither is within the BUAB and they are not brown field sites. At the Open Day the criteria by which all sites will be judged must be clear. It raised the interesting thought that new sites had never been considered in Binsted; the basic approach is that all new development should be within the BUAB - but there is not one at Binsted which comprises a scattering of individual properties. With no facilities, it was difficult to imagine how development at Binsted would constitute sustainable development. Both proposals demonstrate that any variation of the current policies must be considered with caution.

Meeting ended at 5.05pm

82  minutes of a meeting held at the Pavilion at 12.30pm on Monday 14 ^th January 2019

1.The meeting was preceded by an informal meeting with Chris Harrison and John Richards of Dandara, the developers of Fontwell Meadows. The purpose was a preliminary consultation on their proposals for reserved matters - especially details of layout, landscaping, community facilities, etc. Members of the Parish Council were also present and all concerned found it to be a constructive meeting.

2. Apologies for absence: Bill Pethers, Bill Langridge

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Youatt, Bob Rogers, Ann Cannings, Andrew Ratcliffe, Claire Lewis and John Kilford.

3.Minutes of the meeting on 07.12.2018: These were approved.

4.Open Day 26 ^th January 2019: SC has publicised the event via Email and posters were distributed for display. PY was i/c display boards, which were to be obtained through MC. All but JK would be on duty, all wearing badges.

There followed a long detailed discussion on the material to be displayed. PY recommended that all landowners should be treated equally and the Group agreed that all who had made contact should be invited to provide a plan of their proposals and to attend if they wished. Several landowners and agents had already confirmed their presence. The erratic approach to planning applications by ADC could easily undermine faith in the system; this made it even more important that the Review of the NP should be transparent and the selection of building sites should be strictly in accordance with the criteria.

It was still not clear what Walberton's allocation would be: the current figure of 60 may be whittled down to 40, which was achievable with a small contribution from other sites. PY took the Group through each site and the relevant texts.

It was agreed refreshments would not be offered; set up to commence at 9.00 and close at 3pm.

5. Review and Questionnaire: PB suggested that the Group needed to decide which policies should be saved policies and questions in the Survey should be addressing new and changed policies. Members were asked to reply to his Email dated 13.12.208 giving their views on which policies need changing/reviewing and suggesting amendments to the questionnaire - which will be programmed for March. New elements will be Local Green Spaces at Tuppers and Dandara, traffic calming and pollution concerns. BR will develop the questionnaire with MC.

6. Design Guide: JK reported current progress in identifying landscape areas within the parish.

7. Any other business:

•  Arising from the previous minutes, PB explained that the proposed biodiversity corridors would initially be based on the chalk streams and drainage channel, details of which might be available through flood protection work by the previous WPC

•  Share Point is a system that the PC now uses and SC reported that WPC would be providing training in its use. Initially for Andrew, Suzi and Peter Y.

•  PY/AR/CL would be attending the next ADC meeting for parish councils.

•  Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Highways England consultation has been shown to gros sly distort the area of ancient woodland to be affected by all the schemes.

•  BR reported a meeting to be held with representatives of Boxgrove PC and WSCC to investigate traffic calming in Walberton

•  SC will be away from 14/02 - 15.03. Claire unavailable from 1 to 22 Feb - please let her know of any long breaks in February and March.

8  Date of next meeting    Monday 4 February at 1400 in the Pavilion.

83 Minutes of a meeting held at Mallards at 2pm on

Monday 4 ^th February 2019

1.  Apologies: Bill Langridge, Claire Lewis

Present : Suzi Clark (chairman), John Kilford, Peter Brown, Andrew Ratcliffe, Peter Youatt, Bob Rogers , Bill Pethers .

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 14.01.19: were approved.

3.  Matters arising:

•  Design Guide: JK reported he had received some guidance documents from Maureen Chaffe

•  Traffic Calming: BR reported on a recent meeting when residents of Boxgrove had shared their experience of calming traffic in their parish and especially the reduction of speed. WPC will be researching a way forward. While the topic was one for WPC rather that this Group, it was agreed to be useful background as traffic and safety was a major concern in the parish.

4.  Feedback on Open Day on 26 ^th January : SC reported on a very successful day with 148 visitors , of whom there were 19 from Fontwell and 1 7 from Binsted, there were well presented proposals by land owners and their agents. 27 more Email addresses had been added to the list. AR was impressed by the level of interest and understanding and the lack of serious criticism. The detailed proposals would be available on the website and in the Parish Office prior to the despatch of the Questionnaire. BR had circulated public comments on traffic calming and Green Spaces and PY had shared some comments on individual sites.

5.  Questionnaire: The design of the questions to be asked had to be linked to the review of policies: the Group agreed which current policies should be saved policies which would not need further questions. However, where policies were to be amended or new policies introduced, then those need to be backed by evidence, including showing public support via the Survey.

Questions will be where possible Yes/No but also open. JK warned against analysis solely based on numerical scores. SC pointed out new guidance under the NPPF. PY will circulate the suggested criteria against which each site must be judged - this information will be contained in the questionnaire and the accompanying Neighbourhood News. Sites will not be included which are already subject to planning applications. The sites to be included are: Spindlewood, National Trust land, The Dower House, Sussex Business Park, The Pines, The Manor House, Binsted, land west of Tye Lane and Long Wall.

Two members of the Steering Group had put land in their ownership up for consideration; it was agreed to be proper that when the sites are being discussed, they should be asked to leave the room and take no part in the discussion.

Timetable: the wording of the questionnaire will be delivered to Angela English for design work on 13 ^th March; to the printers by 20 ^th March; volunteers to deliver on the weekend of 30/31 March; return date Easter Monday 22 ^nd April. An early meeting will be necessary; prior to that, the following offered to draft specific questions:

•  SC : Facilities - with preamble, two more LGSs

•  PY: Development Sites, affordable with local connection

•  PB: Employment, Parking on playing field, cycling safety, archaeology, BioDiversity

The forms to be delivered with prepay return envelopes, but all encouraged to fill in online. Postcodes will be requested to help in analysis. Forms also to be sent to businesses - BR to produce updated list.

6.  BioDiversity Corridors: PB reported progress in identifying corrections needed in NP introductions, any gaps to be plugged. He recommended the rejected policies should be reintroduced separately for BioDiversity and Archaeology. SC suggested we should be aiming at producing a Draft PN for consultation in July 2019. Valuable information had been received from the Sussex Biodiversity Centre: MAVES, Mark Wardle and Sue Wallsgrove will be consulted.

7.  Share Point: SC and AR had been trained in the use of this secure storage system introduced to conform with the Freedom of Information legislation. MC will assist members when necessary.

8.  Public rights of way review: PB reported a team of five volunteers had started on the inspections of the network and aimed to produce a report which would highlight gaps in the network, other problems, future needs and suggested action. A particular problem to be identified is the safety aspects of the WSCC cycle way down West Walberton Lane.

9.  Any other business: SC reported on two a possible new recruit s to the Group and Peter B to approach her.

The group agreed on questions and comments to assist the Pc in responding to Arun's Capacity Profile Pro Forma

10.  Dates of coming meetings:

•  2pm on 18 ^th February at Lansdowne House (now changed to...) to agree questions

•  2pm on Friday 8 ^th March at The Pines (subject to Bill L consent)

Minutes of a meeting held at 2.30pm on Friday 15 ^th February 2019 at Lansdown House

1.  Apologies for absence: Suzi Clark, Bill Langridge, Claire Lewis, John Kilford Present: Peter Youatt (vice chairman), Bill Pethers, Bob Rogers, Andrew Ratcliffe, Peter Brown.

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 04.02.19: deferred to the next meeting

3.  Drafting of the Questionnaire: the purpose of this meeting was to agree the questions to be asked and to aim that they should be in final draft form for the next meeting on 8 ^th March. The answers from the community would give authority to the changes to existing policies. PB had provided a schedule of NP policies showing those to be saved (with no change) and those in need of revision - it is those which will drive the chosen questions. It was noted that several policies would not need to be changed, but their supporting Schedule in the NP would need amendment/updating.

Following detailed discussion, the following topics will be subject to a question:

a)  Biodiversity - PB's draft was approved

b)  Archaeology - PB's draft was approved

c)  Spatial Plan of the Parish - PY to ask Maureen to update

d)  Individual sites - PY to draft

e)  Affordable Housing with local connection - PY to research and draft

f)  Walking and Cycle Routes - PB's draft approved

g)  Parking in Walberton - PB's draft approved

h)  Business and Employment - PB's draft approved

i)  Extra facilities needed - AR to draft

Overarching these specific questions, the community will be asked to endorse existing vision and core objectives - PY to draft. Those contributing drafts will get them to BR for coordination by 1 ^st March so they can be attached to agendas the following week.

4.  Despatch of Questionnaire: It is due to be hand delivered on 30/31 March together with an accompanying Neighbourhood News. SC had asked the Group to consider what other news should be included. The Group was anxious to keep the papers closely focussed on the matter in hand. However, the first item would be a letter from the WPC chairman which might include other vital items. As discussed last time the introduction would be along the lines that, despite disappointment over recent planning decisions, there have been a number of real benefits obtained through negotiation.

The NN will contain an explanation of the Core Objectives and the criteria to be used in due course - PY to draft. The number of sites will be listed and shown in four categories:

a)  In the Neighbourhood Plan and started or completed

b)  In the NP but no progress or application

c)  Not in NP but planning permission given

d)  New sites for consideration.

5.  National Trust Land at Fontwell: it appeared that the NT were actively interested in pursuing this site as the income to be generated was needed to support the Slindon Esate. If this site were to be adopted, there was a strong chance that a mixed development could be achieved with a mix of housing closely tailored to meet the needs of the parish. Furthermore it would, numerically, meet ADC's allocation on just one site. It could be achieved by an extension of the BUAB. . It was agreed that a question testing the reaction of residents to such an extension with an explanation of the change of facts following the granting of the Barnfield permission and that on Lanesend could be in cluded in the Questionnaire. However, this option would go directly against the wishes of the present NP not to put all houses onto just one site - and thereby striking all the others from the Plan, unless the parish was happy to provide more housing than necessary.

These are the issues to be addressed once the results of the Questionnaire have been analysed.

6. AOB: AR asked whether there should be a question about the need to housing specifically designed for elderly people.

7. Date of next meeting: 2pm on Friday 8 ^th March at the Pavilion.

Minutes of a meeting held at Mallards on Friday 8 ^th March at 2pm

1.  Apologies for absence: Claire Lewis, Bill Langridge, Andrew Ratcliffe.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Youatt, Bob Rogers, John Kilford. Also in attendance as observers: Alan and Teresa Gess.

2.  Minutes of the meetings held on 4 ^th and 15 ^th March: were approved.

3.  Matters arising: BR confirmed he was to update the list of business addresses prior to the despatch of the Questionnaire. Progress on the Design Guide will be reported as necessary.

4.  The Neighbourhood Survey - draft Questionnaire: members had submitted questions on Housing, Biodiversity, Archaeology, Walking and Cycling, Business and Employment and Village Facilities; residents would also be asked to confirm the overall Core Objectives were still valid.

The content and the wording of the proposed Questionnaire was then subject to forensic study from which BR undertook to circulate a revised version which would then pass to Maureen Chaffe for collation.

Members reminded themselves that this exercise aimed simply to obtain the views of the community; assessment of sites would come later. It was agreed that an even handed approach was necessary so that all proposals should be presented in a similar format. When filling in the form, residents would be anonymous but, to assist analysis, would be asked to provide their postcode.

5.  Neighbourhood News: The Questionnaire would be distributed on 30/31 March for return no later than 23 ^rd April, together with the Neighbourhood News. The NN would be full colour with six sides of information including the central map showing sites. Residents will be encouraged to return online but could also return hard copy to the Parish Office, Church Office and Walberton Stores; an address in Fontwell would be found. Text would be prepared by SC and PY and circulated. The final version will go to Angela for graphics on 11.03, with text on 15.03, finalised on 20.03, to printer 22.03, printed by 28.03, envelopes on 28/29.03 and despatch by volunteers on 30/31.03. It was agreed that prepaid return envelopes were not necessary. SC would liaise with AE to produce posters and banners.

6.  Finance: SC was confident sufficient funds were available, although printing costs would be higher than expected due to larger NN. £2,000 grant must be spent by 31.03.19.

7.  Any other business: SC asked all to assist with proof reading

8.  Date of next meeting: not decided but might be in week commencing 13 ^th April.

Meeting ended at 5.30pm

•  Apologies: Bob Rogers, Alan Gess and John Kilford

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Bill Pethers, Claire Lewis, Teresa Gess, Peter Youatt, Bill Langridge and Peter Brown

•  Minutes of the meeting on 8 ^th March: were approved. SC thanked all the volunteers who delivered the Questionnaire to every home and business. There was a small omission in the hard copy.

•  Finance: at the close of year, £1,184.75 was left unspent. For the new year, an application will be made to ADC, details to depend on the emerging timetable.

•  Planning background: the first formal step in the Review will be to submit an updated State of the Parish report to ADC. The chairman allocated certain sections to members of the Group to draft updated sections: she would like the information by the time of the next meeting.

PB reported that Maureen Chaff had recommended a positive approach to the extension of the Conservation Area in the NP. PB to speak to Martyn White to obtain his recommendation for an enlarged CA. It was believed that the target for the Reviewed NP was still 60 additional dwellings. More affordable housing would not be necessary because of the Fontwell Meadows and Tuppers Field allocation. There is still a wish to provide housing with a local connection.

•  Biodiversity Report: This had been circulated and was approved as a basis for our new policies on this topic and specifically the designation of biodiversity corridors. These would be based on chalk streams (a priority habitat) and linking tree lines and hedgerows. This report will now be in the Evidence Base. More work is needed to bolster the report which will then be an appendix to the NP when published. Bats do not feature in the corridor concept, but their needs may be considered when confirming rk sky policies.

•  Getting Around: PB had circulated a report on the public rights of way serving the parish; the small working group had surveyed the condition of each path and had recommended future needs of an increasing population. PB will copy it to the WPC. SC understood the barrier the A27 was to non motorised users, but had detected a clear message from Highways England and WSCC that there would be no funding available for new bridges/underpasses. Nonetheless, the problem needed to be articulated. PB also reported the approach from local equestrians, asking that any new paths should, where possible, be available to walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

PB will draft a further draft which might suggest new or amended NP policies.

•  Any other business:

•  A27 Arundel Bypass: A map had been released on social media of five options that were being considered by Highways England prior to consultation in August/September.

•  Pigeon House Farm: agents for the owners had approached the Parish Council asking for a meeting to explore the development of some 200 houses on land to the west of the farm buildings. This might be considered in the selection process.

•  Land near Walberton Village Green: a similar approach was proposing 40 houses to be accessed from West Walberton Lane.

•  Design Issues: Members consider it very important that the promised Design Guide should be ready to be incorporated into the first draft of the Reviewed NP. JK was mapping out Landscape Character Areas and BL would establish the next step. One issue that needs to be covered is the importance of flint walls in the villages - not covered by the Local Plan. This work needs to go hand in hand with the Conservation Area Review.

•  Archaeology: PB was preparing to draft a report on this topic, which would lead to proposing new policies. This work was approved for action.

•  West Walberton Lane: BL would be reporting to WPC on the work he and Patrick Dealtry had in hand to modifiy traffic for the benefit of walkers and cyclists.

8.  Date of next meeting: 2pm on Monday 13 ^th May in the Pavilion. The two items on the agenda would be:

•  State of the Parish Update

•  Approval of site selection criteria and application

9.  Questionnaire Response: MC had supplied a comprehensive analysis of the 378 returns. Most responses were predictable but useful. There was some support for an alternative cycle route should WWL not be improveable; most were opposed to more parking being provided - particularly against losing any of the playing field. A number asked for the provision of missing pavements. It was agreed that all returns would be placed on the website, without postcodes and dates. BR will be asked to make an illustrated summary - pie charts, etc - showing the yes/no responses and, where appropriate analyse against postcodes.

The Group reviewed how the results were treated previously. Now we have a Np and criteria need to relate directly to those policies. PY will draft suggested criteria for comment. Numerical yes/no responses will be provided as supporting information.

1.  Apologies: Bill Langridge, Bill Pethers, John Kilford and Peter Youatt.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Brown, Bob Rogers, Alan Gess, Teresa Gess, Andrew Ratcliffe and Claire Lewis.

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 29 ^th April 2019: were approved.

3.  Membership: Members were sad to learn that Peter Youatt had decided to stand down after five years' service. Members wished to record their gratitude for his many contributions to the work of the Steering Group since its inception. SC reported that two of the recently elected Parish Councillors would be joining the group. The election of chairman and vice chairman was deferred to the next meeting.

4.  Wandley's Farm: It was reported that Mr and Mrs Lillywhite had won their appeal against the refusal of planning consent. The new development will consist of 1 market house and 4 affordable. It was unlikely that this number would be allowed as a contribution to new housing in the Revised Neighbourhood Plan.

5.  Land west of Walberton Village Green: the owners, who proposed 40 new houses on this land, had requested a meeting with the Parish Council; this request had been delegated to this Group. It was agreed that a meeting should be offered to them and the agents for Pigeon House Farm on Friday 7 ^th June.

6.  State of the Parish Report: SC reminded members there was some urgency in updating this key document which needs approval to trigger the commencement of the Review. She confirmed that the census information will not be updated and that BP had agreed to update the Health and Education information. PB mentioned that there were a number of errors that needed correction and he was asked to let SC have details.

7.  Site Selection: PY had circulated forms for each site that had been submitted with a number of criteria to aid in deciding which should be included in the Revised Neighbourhood Plan. Some criteria are more important and the most critical, in keeping our villages' rural character is the protection of the Strategic Gap and the open countryside between the villages. The sites were assessed as follows:

a)  Spindlewood: this is classified as brownfield, received public support and generally conforms with the NP and was AGREED - 5 HOUSING UNITS

b)  Sussex Business Park : a brownfield site with operating business uses which our developing policies wish to retain. A mixed development fits well. AGREED TO INCLUDE MIXED DEVELOPMENT WITH 11 HOUSING UNITS NOT AGREED TO INCLUDE THIS SITE FOR 15 HOUSES

c)  Langmeads Field west of Tye Lane: a large development outside BUAB with potential access and drainage problems. NOT AGREED

d)  Woodcroft: Already in the Neighbourhood Plan, the new proposal is to increase from 2 to 8 new houses. AGREED FOR 8 HOUSES

e)  Wandleys Farm: for completeness, this proposed development should be included following the successful appeal, although ADC may disagree. AGREED FOR 1 MARKET AND 4 AFFORDABLE HOMES.

f)  Land at the Dower House adjacent to Parsons Walk: HELAA shows 10 units, but the Group considered that the use of the whole site shown would have an impact on the listed building curtilege and Conservation Area. No current proposal. It is within the BUAB. AGREE TO INCLUDE 6 HOUSES ON THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SITE FACING ONTO PARSONS WALK WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS.

g)  Long Wall near Blacksmiths Corner: This back land obtained planning consent for 3 dwellings in the past, but lapsed. No current proposal. Despite concern about access and impact on neighbours, AGREED FOR 3 DWELLINGS.

h)  Sunny Corner: Difficult planning history which is outside BUAB; 68.73% opposition by public. NOT AGREED

i)  Land west of the Village Green: outside BUAB and would impact on Local Green Space. Currently not supported in HELAA. Proposal received for 46 houses here. NOT AGREED (However, there will be a meeting with the developer)

j)  Manor House, Binsted: land is outside the BUAB and within the South Downs National Park. The site is contrary to NP policies in open countryside with no services and environmental constraints. Despite public support NOT AGREED

k)  Land at Pigeon House Farm: the land, to the west of the farm buildings, is outside the BUAB and within the Strategic Gap between Walberton and Barnham, protected in the Local Plan. Access could be problematic. A suggestion for c200 homes received. NOT AGREED. (however there will be a meeting with the agents for the owners)

l)  The Pines, West Walberton Lane: the proposed site is in open countryside outside the BUAB, close to designated ancient woodland and chalk stream. The proposition for 4 affordable and 5 open market houses has public support but is fundamentally contrary to policies and would set a dangerous precedent. Despite public support, NOT AGREED

m)  National Trust Land adjoining A27 at Fontwell: This land is outside the BUAB but is bordered by the A27 and new development due at Lane End and Barnfield House. It will almost certainly be developed eventually but there is concern about overdevelopment at Fontwell with so much new housing over the next few years having a negative effect on residents. Three options offered of full development of 94 dwellings, partial development of 59 dwellings with a green space or a mixed development of 66 dwellings plus commercial development. The latter would meet the developing policy of providing employment opportunities in the parish. All three options strongly opposed by the public. NOT AGREED but subject to further discussions with the National Trust - AR to arrange.

SC reported that the target is for the Revised NP to provide for an additional 60 houses; the assessment provides 31 net additions (excluding Wandleys Farm). The inclusion of the National Trust land would potentially meet the target. WPC has to provide a prediction of deliverable and developable sites to help ADC to finalise its policy for housing supplies (item 10).

8.  Annual Parish Meeting on 21 ^st May: PB to confirm to Clerk that he will give a 2 minute update.

9.  Finance: SC confirmed that the Groundwork end of the grant form has been approved: £1,184.75 will be held for expenses over the coming 2 months. Further rants will be sought from ADC (£5,000) and Locality (£1,7525).

10.  ADC Development Plan Document meeting on 28 ^th May: PB agreed to attend plus one Parish Councillor.

11.  Members registered upcoming holiday absence: SC 22-30.05; AG and TG 29.05 - 09.06; PB 30.05 - 06.06; CL 07 - 27.06; JK 14.05 - 10.06.

12.  Date of next meetings:

•  Meeting with owners/agents from 1pm to 3pm on Friday 7 ^th June in the Pavilion - for those available.

•  Full Steering Group meeting - priority to finalise projections at 10.00 0n Monday 3 ^rd June at the Pavilion (or Mallards)

•  Full Stee ring Group meeting at 2.30pm on Monday 24 ^th June at the Pavilion.

Minutes of a meeting held in the Pavilion at 2.30pm on Monday 24 ^th June 2019

1.  Apologies for absence received from Bob Rogers, Claire Lewis, Alan and Teresa Gess, John Kilford and Andrew Ratcliffe.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Andy Vawer, Paul Fisher, Bill Pethers, Malcolm Porter, Peter Brown, Bill Langridge. Also in attendance the Group's consultant, Maureen Chaffe. Absent: Douglas McElvogue

SC welcomed new members to the meeting and briefly explained the terms of reference; being a working group, the Steering Group is not restricted by the Council's normal rules of procedure.

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 13.05.19: were approved

3.  Matters arising:

•  Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman: Suzi Clark was unanimously elected chairman for the coming year, only. Election of a Vice Chairman was deferred to a later meeting.

•  Wandley's Farm development: SC confirmed that our revised NP will not be credited with these 5 new dwellings.

•  Reports of recent informal meetings with potential developers had been circulated: Land West of Village Green, Land at Pigeon House Farm and the National Trust field at Fontwell. A new layout had been submitted for the land next to the Village Green which will be tabled at a future meeting. The reports will be referred to when site selection is decided.

•  Arun District Council's Development Plan: SC explained that, following recent elections, ADC's new leader has called for a fundamental review of the Local Plan policies, a report will identify how the necessary infrastructure will be provided. There was a danger that the review will delay the process whereby we will be told how many houses we must provide in our NP Review.

MC warned the Group that, once the State of the Parish Report has been submitted, ADC will probably require a Strategic Environmental Assessment - a rather complex, lengthy and costly task. She also reminded the Group and WPC that the adoption of the new Share Point storage system must be embraced soon. SC would take this up with the Parish Clerk.

4.  State of the Parish Report: Since the last meeting, it had been concluded that part 3 of the current NP would adequately form the basis of this document which needs to be submitted to ADC soon. PB had suggested a number of amendments to correct some anomalies and minor errors; these had been correlated by MC and circulated. BP tabled additional amendments and they were all examined and discussed. There was general agreement and PB and MC will aim to complete the document within a fortnight and circulate for further comment; WPC will then submit it to ADC.

AT a previous meeting it was agreed that many NP policies would be regarded as saved policies - i.e. unchanged. However, some need adjustment and there will be some new policies, which will have to be backed up through the Evidence Base. PB agreed to circulate a list of which policies will be saved and which to be amended, and which new policies will be introduced.

5.  Design Guide : JK has been taking the lead on this but little apparent progress had been made. The Group had previously agreed that a Design Guide would need to be succinct and simple for the WPC and ADC to use on a regular basis. Importantly, it should not duplicate ADC's Local Plan policies. The Group considered that the protection of the characteristic flint walls in Walberton Village was an important topic. PB recalled a very comprehensive survey of historic and vulnerable flint walls carried out by the former Walberton Action Group. HE would reclaim it from Martyn White, ADC Conservation Planner. HE will pass it to PF and BP who may review its relevance to Fontwell and Binsted. SC will write to JK concerning the way forward.

There was also concern about the lack of progress by Martyn White on the review and extension of the parish Conservation Areas. PB will try to obtain guidance of progress and discover whether MW can share draft maps of proposed changes.

6.  Biodiversity Policies: PB outlined the work done so far and would welcome support. He and MP will aim to bring a note on proposed new policies to a later meeting.

7.  Archaeology Policies: PB outlined a similar situation where new policies were aimed at giving some protection to known archaeological sites that currently have none.

8.  Work Programme : Following the approval of the State of the Parish Report, and subject to the need for a SEA, the Group must focus on developing new policies and amendments; in the recent Survey, the community had given strong backing to retain our Vision and Core Objectives. Once policies have been confirmed, criteria will be drawn up to assist with the selection of sites for new housing.

BR is in the process of producing a report relating postcodes to survey responses - they will be valuable to aid the selection process.

9.  Finance : MC recommended that ADC should be asked for extra grant to enable progress to be made, if S.E.A. is required.

10.  Date of next meeting: 2pm on Monday 8 ^th July 2019 in the Pavilion. This meeting will have just the single item of confirming a new range of policies for the NP.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Bob Rogers, Andy Vawer, Peter Brown, Alan Gess, Paul Fisher, and Bill Pethers. Consultant Maureeen Chaffe was also present.

SC reported that with regret Claire had now resigned from this Group: tribute was paid to her invaluable contribution.

1.  Minutes of the meeting held on 24 ^th June were approved.

2.  Matters arising:

•  Design Guide: PB reported on a meeting with the ADC Conservation Planner, Martyn White; he had confirmed that he hoped to make progress with the review of the Conservation Areas, which may result in the extension of the boundaries. He would welcome the opportunity to attend a meeting of this Group to get an initial feedback. The extensions cannot be done through the NP Review process as there are specific requirements for consultations with the affected householders. He welcomed the Group's wishes to promote good design and reported that ADC expects to launch its own Design Guide at the end of 2019.

The Steering Group agreed that the review of the Np needs to be expedited and it seemed unlikely that a bespoke Design Guide could be produced quickly enough; in any case there would be a danger that there would be considerable overlap or duplication with the proposed ADC Guide. It was therefore decided that the preparation of a Design Guide would be dropped, but design policies within the Plan might be strengthened.

•  The State of the Parish Report: MC was thanked for updating the Report, but some of the proposed amendments had yet to be added; members had also let PB have further minor suggestions. PB would liaise with MC and it was agreed that SC would approve the final version to be forwarded to ADC.

3.  Policies in the Revised Neighbourhood Plan : The Group then carefully worked through the text of the current NP policies to decide which policies are no longer relevant and can be deleted, which require amendment and which new policies need to be drafted. MC warned that any amendment to the wording of policies will open the possibility of challenge - that referred to the actual policy in bold type; the supporting reasons can be updated.

The appendix to these minutes record the decisions taken. The final text of some of the policies need more work and discussion at futues meetings, but sufficient progress had been made to provide a framework within which sites for future development can be selected - or otherwise.

4.  Any other business:

•  SC reported that the Welbeck agents had asked to meet with the Group. Following the loss of an appeal for housing there, they wish to pu forward a different scheme - housing for retired people. WPC has consistently opposed any development of that land which would be contrary to the NP and it was agreed that a meeting would serve no purpose.

•  Land adjacent to the Walberton Village Green: the agents have submitted a change in the design of their proposals which they hope might meet objections. An item for the next meeting.

•  National Trust land at Fontwell: NT staff still in touch but have noy yet decided on a scheme.

•  Survey and Questionnaire: BR agreed to provide an analysis of responses, relating them to responders' postcode.

•  Land at Woodcroft for which two houses ar proposed in the NP, but now 8 dwellings are proposed. A planning application is imminent.

•  Sunny Corner: after a long battle, the owners had won an appeal to provide 9 dwellings.

5.  Date of next meetings:

•  Thursday 25 ^th July at 2.30pm in the Pavilion - To agree Site Criteria and meet with Martyn White, if available.

•  Monday 12 ^th August at 10.00 probably in the Pavilion - to agree site selection. PLEASE NOTE, THIS MEETING MAY WELL CONTINUE IN THE AFTERNOON AFTER A SANDWICH LUNCH.

APPENDIX 1 TO MINUTES FOR THE NPSG ON 08.07.19 REVIEW OF Walberton Neighbourhood Plan

This is a schedule of the proposed revisions to the Neighbourhood Plan, as agreed at the meeting of the Steering Group on 8 ^th July 2019. The final wording of some new policies will be subject to further consideration and consultation where necessary.

PART 1 INTRODUCTION - to be generally updated (MC)

PART 2 CONTEXT to be updated (MC)

PART 3 THE PARISH TODAY - this has been revised and will stand as the State of the Parish Report for approval by ADC

PART 4 VISION AND CORE OBJECTIVES

4.1 A Vision - in para. 2 delete the wors from A number of sites....to...[see policies HP1 and HP2]

4.2 Core Objectives sub para 1 replace 50 with 60 (subject to further direction from ADC)

Add sub para 13. Means will be sought to ensure that affordable housing will be available to persons with a local connection.

Delete final para starting Accordingly....

PART 5 NEIGHBURHOOD PLAN POLICIES

Policy VE1 - saved policy

Add new policy VE1.2019 which will add Fontwell Meadows land to the schedule 4 list of LGS

Policies VE2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 - all saved policies

VE 10.2019 Biodiversity Corridors - see Appendix 2

VE 11.2019 Archaeology - see Appendix 2 (MC to offer words)

VE 13 Assets of Community Value - delete policy and Schedule 6

HOUSING POLICIES

HP 1 Spatial Plan - saved policy but reworded to focus on the Built Up Area Boundary (MC to suggest)

HP 2 is redundant - delete

HP 3 & 4 - saved policies

HP 5 Woodcroft - amended to increase from t to 8 dwelings (subject to assessment process)

HP 6 Sunny Corner - delete as redundant

HP 7 Rd Cottage - delete as redundant

HP 8 Progress Garage delete - redundant

HP 9 . 2019 New amednded policy for housing for the elderly

HP 10 Affordable - delete

HP 11 Ho. Density - saved policy

HP 12 - saved but reworded showing it is supported by housing needs survey

HP 13 - saved policy

HP 14 Flint Walls - new policy see Appendix 2 (Alan and Malcolm to report back on how much of the villages this should cover)

HP 15 new policy based on live/work policy at Ford (MC to help)

GETTING AROUND

GA 1 Open access - saved policy

GA 2 Footpaths - saved but extended - see Appendix 2

GA 3, 4, 5 & 6- all saved policies

GA 7 Arundel Bypass - saved as amended - see Appendix 2

SCHEDULE 1 - delete all except 1C

SCHEDULES 2 & 3 - delete

SCHEDULE 4 Local Green Spaces - add two new ones and provide large scale maps for identification

SCHEDULE 5 - retain

SCHEDULE 6 - ASSETS - delete

SCHEDULE 7 - TIMELINE - update and retain with new map

SCHEDULE 8 - retain BUAB map - check with ADC map

Maps will be required to accompany policies on biodiversity, archaeology, LGS and. Possibly, Flint Walls.

Minutes of a meeting held in the Pavilion at 2.30pm on Thursday 25 ^th July 2019

1.  Apologies for absence: Douglas McElvogue; John Kilford; Bill Langridge; Bob Rogers.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Brown, Andrew Ratcliffe, Andy Vawer, Teresa Gess, Alan Gess, Paul Fisher and Bill Pethers.

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 8 ^th July 2019: were approved. However, PB apologised that a section had been omitted from Appendix 1 - to the effect that all Policies CL 1-8 would be saved policies; a corrected minute would be circulated.

3.  Matters arising:

•  State of the Parish Report: SC reported that after a few minor amendments, the document had been finalised and had been sent to ADC with a request to decide whether a Strategic Environment Assessment would be required. If so, funding would be available to employ Locality to implement. A decision should be made by 5 ^th September.

•  Developing Policies, as debated at the last meeting: PB was asked to liaise with Maureen Chaffe to formulate policies to be included in the NP. PB and MC may consult ADC (Donna Moles) prior to Regulation 14 consultation.

4.  Design Guidance: Unfortunately, Martyn White had not been able to attend this meeting. SC reported that ADC had asked parishes to complete and return a questionnaire to assist them in the drafting of a design guide. TG and BP agreed to draft a response, guided by the Core Objectives.

5.  Site Selection: SC reported that clear guidance from MC meant that this Review of the NP could only consider sites that had been submitted within the original deadline. If further sites were to be considered, the whole consultation would have to be rerun. Accordingly, the following sites would not be considered: Land south of West Walberton Lane, Welbeck and Graceland Farm; SC would inform the owners. PF appreciated that there had to be a cut-off but questioned whether communication to all landowners had been clear; SC undertook to check details.

MC had drafted a possible site assessment form that would be needed when all sites are considered for inclusion in the Revised Plan. Peter Youatt had previously also devised an assessment form; SC undertook to draft one that would cover the key aspects of the Core Objectives and facilitate a scoring system. However, it was accepted that not all policies would have equal weight. It was expected that BR's postcode analysis of the Survey responses would be available before the next meeting.

The Core Objectives, as amended provided the basis for decisions and SC took the meeting through aspects to be considered on each site: a valuable exercise which highlighted the range of policies to be measured.

6.  Finance : SC reported that £469.75 was left in the fund and commented that we were fortunate that MC was operating on a generous fee scale. Future expenditure will be determined by the need to commission a SEA - or not.

7.  Communications: SC reported that the next Neighbourhood News would be produced by WPC focussing on the Arundel Bypass consultation. It was agreed that the following NP news would need to be in the Parish News, Emails, etc in October, copy required by 16 ^th September . There would be a Regulation 14 formal consultation with the public and also statutory authorities.

8.  Any other business:

•  Surgery on 5 ^th October: ADC and WSCC Councillors will be in the village to hear our concerns

•  Share Point: some teething problems, training to follow.

•  Built UP Area Boundary (BUAB) - important aspect of NP: ADC had amended it through the Local Plan process; a plan showing the new BUAB will be circulated.

•  Policy on Flint Walls: BP, PF and MP were asked to peruse the survey of flint walls in Binsted and Fontwell and suggest how priorities should be set, as a blanket protection on all flint walls would not be accepted.

9.  Date of next meetings:

•  Monday 12 ^th August in the Small Hall at 10.00 - due to end at 3pm. Members to bring their own snack lunch; soft drinks will be provided. The purpose of this meeting will be to select which sites are to be included in the NP for development.

•  Thursday 12 ^th September at 2.30pm at Gable House, The Street (AR's home) - hopefully Martyn White ADC will be present

Minutes of a meeting at the Small Hall at 10.00 on Monday 12 ^th August 2019

1.  Apologies: Douglas McElvogue, Bill Langridge, John Kilford

Present: Suzi Clark, Peter Brown, Bob Rogers, Andrew Ratcliffe, Malcolm Porter, Andy Vawer, Alan Gess, Teresa Gess, Paul Fisher and Bill Pethers (the latter four had to miss parts of the meeting due to other separate commitments) Maureen Chaffe was also in attendance.

2.  Minutes of the meeting on 25 ^th July 2019: these were approved to subject a minor date amendment. Matters arising:

•  SC confirmed that letters had been sent to the owners/agents of the additional sites

•  PF had studied the flint wall survey and has passed it to MP

•  BR had not been able to complete a postcode analysis of the survey responses.

3.  Assessment of sites to be considered for inclusion in the Revised Plan:

Prior to individual assessments, with MC's assistance the following matters were clarified:

•  The term Brownfield sites was defined by reference to the National Guidelines and ADC's Local Plan. Specifically, a large garden plot in residential use inside or outside the Built Up Area Boundary cannot be described as brownfield.

•  All sites must be assessed with regard to national, local and neighbourhood policies, after which the survey results will be considered.

•  The BUAB is an important part of the process; MC had asked ADC for their latest BUAB map for Walberton. It was disturbing that the version ADC sent was clearly wrong in key parts of the Parish. MC will query the matter.

•  SC pointed out that the eastern part of the Parish is in the National Park; accordingly, any housing proposed for that area would not count towards the target ADC would be setting. SDNP may well ask for a separate figure.

•  It was noted that some of the sites to be assessed were not the subject of specific proposals; they may also not be covered by HELA, in which case the Steering Group would have more scope in specifying numbers for those sites.

4.  The assessment: The Group then assessed nine sites and 12 proposals against a set of agreed criteria. AV and SC recorded the process which, when written up, will be circulated to ensure agreement. SC explained that ADC had still not confirmed whether or not the target was 60 additional dwellings; this would be a difficult figure to reach and she was minded to report to the District Council that our very thorough process suggested that 40 was more realistic, particularly in view of additional housing recently approved at Wandley's Farm and Sunny Corner (both on appeal) which cannot be included in the figures in the NP. Clarification will be sought on approvals at 1 Orchard Way, 7 The Meadows and at Lanes End.

Although not popular with the community, members felt that, if more than 40 houses are required, careful consideration must be given to the National Trust field at Fontwell. AR regretted that the National Trst had yet to provide and further details of their proposals. BR reminded the Group of the urgent need for an additional Play Centre which could be achieved on that site. MC explained how important it was to write a very clear report of the selection process so the evidence base could be defended at a future time.

5.  Any other business:

•  Review of Conservation Areas: It was hoped Martyn White would meet the Group on 12 ^th September; SC asked MC to draft a somewhat stronger policy to support action.

•  Drafting of new policies: PB confirmed he and MC were to meet on 14.08.19 to address this task.

•  SC said there had been no response yet from ADC concerning the need for a SEA

6.  Date of next meeting: at 2.30pm 12 ^th September at Gable House, The Street.

The meeting ended at 3.15pm

92 Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Minutes of a meeting at Gable House at 2.30pm on Thursday 12th September 2019

1. Apologies: received from John Kilford, Bob Rogers and Bill Pethers.
   Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Brown, Alan and Teresa Gess, Paul Fisher, Andy Vawer, Malcom Porter and Andrew Ratcliffe (our host)
2. Minutes of the meeting on 12th August 2019: were approved
3. Matters Arising:
   • Strategic Environmental Assessment: SC had applied to Locality for financial support and advice in the preparation of this document which ADC had required. Contact had been made with Locality and its contractor a planning consultant AECOM (Ryan Putt) who specialises in Neighbourhood Planning. PB presented a full report (copy with minutes) on a telephone interview setting out the SEA Process involving an initial Scoping Report and culminating in an Environment Report which would then become an attachment to the Reg. 14 Draft Revised NP. That would give strong and impartial support to the NP and should verify the new environmental policies we are developing.
     He also explained an additional package AECOM could provide, that is a Site Assessment system leading to soundly based site selection which should withstand criticism at the examination stage.
     PB had explained to him that we could be in a position whereby we could not fulfil the numbers demanded by ADC if we applied our policies strictly. If there was a fairly small shortfall, Ryan Putt suggested we could adopt a “windfall” policy based on the likelihood of new small scale (guideline max. 9) applications emerging during the life of the Plan. This flexibility could allow sensible incremental growth. A particular site in Fontwell was cited as a good example and there was general agreement to develop a new policy along these lines. (Note: PF did not take part in this discussion). After discussion, the Steering Group welcomed the involvement of AECOM and asked PB to be the link. AR offered to assist SC in the application for further support through the site assessment package. Further action: PB to find out from ADC if/why a Habitat Regulation Assessment will be necessary; SC/AR to make a second grant application for technical support; PB to speak to Maureen Chaffe about HRAs and examples of NP windfall policies.
   • Site Assessments: : AV was thanked for his spreadsheet covering the discussion at the last meeting. This process will now slow down to harmonise with the work with AECOM. That process is likely to take some 5 months with a view to Reg 14 consultation in January/February 2020.
   • Conservation Areas Review: Martyn White had been unable to attend this meeting; he will be welcome to a future meeting, if he gives adequate notice.
4. New Policies:
5. PB presented three reports which suggested the text of three new policy areas and recommended how the policies should be phrased:
   • Flint walls: The basic policy and reasoning were approved. There was discussion as to how flint walling outside the BUAB could be protected. The excellent survey by Walberton Action Group seemed to provide a possible solution; it has been digitised and is in Share Point. PB was asked to consult MC as to whether the policy could specifically protect all those in the survey. MP pointed out that the survey may need updating and agreed to organise that process, helped by AV, PF and AR.
   • Archaeology Report: PB tabled draft maps which illustrated Archaeological Notification Areas and the sites of recent discoveries named in the report.
   • Biodiversity Report: PB had drafted a map which showed how the biodiversity corridors might look.
   The Steering Group approved the reports as a basis for these new policies.
6. Finance: SC reported that just under £70 of the grant was unspent and will be returned prior to the next bid.
7. Any other business:
   • SC reported no further indication from ADC as to how many extra houses we need to propose; she will follow up.
   • PF/AV agreed to approach Peter Youatt to arrange for data to be transferred to the Share Point archive.
   • The new proposed site for housing east of Yapton Lane submitted by Gladman, will be considered by the Parish Council at their next meeting.
   • A27 Arundel Bypass – WPC reaction will be in the Neighbourhood News at the end of September.
8. Date of next meeting: 2pm on Monday 11th November 2019 to be held in the Pavilion.

The meeting closed at 4.05pm

Minutes of a meeting held in Walberton Pavilion at 2pm on Monday 11 ^th November 2019

1.  Apologies for absence: received from John Kilford, Bob Rogers and Alan Gess

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Peter Brown, Andy Vawer, Andrew Ratcliffe, Teresa Gess, Bill Langridge, Paul Fisher, Bill Pethers, Malcolm Porter.

2.  Minutes of the meeting held on 12.09.19: were approved

3.  Matters arising:

•  PF reported that the previous electronic records of landowners were no longer available, but he was researching.

•  Land east of Yapton Lane (Gladman): no further contact had been made

•  A27 Bypass Consultation: SC had circulated by Email the Parish Council's formal response.

•  Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitat Regulation Assessment: PB confirmed that the support of consultants, AECOM, had been secured through Locality . He had provided AECOM with much background information; AECOM specialists would be sending a Scoping Report to Highways England, Natural England and the Environment Agency within the next three weeks. Those bodies will then have 5 weeks within which to raise any particular points of concern. AECOM will then appraise our developing NP and advise us on any changes that might be necessary. The end product will be an Environment Report supporting our Draft. A particular issue will be as to whether we have considered reasonable alternative approaches. An initial visit was planned for AECOM to meet with SC, PB and MP on 27 ^th November.

•  Site Selection: AECOM will also be helping us through their well established Site Selection Package. A separate AECOM team would soon be visiting the parish to discuss criteria with SC and PB and to view the individual sites. When questioned over the problem of late submission of sites by landowners, their advice was clear: this Steering Group should assess all sites that come forward against the same criteria as other sites in the spirit of openness and fairness. A rigid cut-off may preclude consideration of good new sites; furthermore, if a new site went to appeal and the Steering Group had refused to assess because it was too late, the examiner might not take our opposition seriously - especially if ADC seemed sympathetic.

SC circulated a list of sites that needed to be assessed and members were asked to scrutinise the list and planning history to ensure none had been missed.

It was hoped that both these reviews would be completed in February 2020 leading to an Open Day feedback on the new and amended policies.

4.  Update on New Policies: PB had prepared a report, which will be kept with the minutes, on the new policies to be added to the NP as part of the first review:

•  Flint Walls: At the previous meeting, the Steering Group had approved a policy that would cover walls within the Conservation Area and BUAB. This report was approved setting out an approach to protect flint walls outside the BUAB, where appropriate. PF and MP agreed to identify the roads outside the BUAB that should be included in the schedule.

•  Windfall Sites: Maureen Chaffe had identified a windfall site that other local parishes were adopting. The Group noted that it would only cover new opportunities within the BUAB; nonetheless it would be a useful policy and it was approved.

•  Built Up Area Boundaries: the report drew attention to the discrepancy between the Local Plan and the made NP where it proposed that the BUAB at Fontwell should be extended. SC undertook to ask ADC to update the LP map. There was discussion as to whether the BUAB should be amended; the fact that the boundaries only cover a small percentage of the housing in the parish on one hand gives us considerable protection, but also restricts our options to provide more housing within the NP policies. AECOM may have useful advice.

•  Climate Change : a report by the Centre for Sustainable Energy had been circulated, which looked at the use of Neighbourhood Plans to take forward green policies on such topics as energy efficiency, sustainable transport, flooding and biodiversity. SC suggested that such policies were very much in tune with current concerns and one parishioner had asked that the Parish Council should declare a Climate Emergency. The document had given examples of parishes where policies encouraging the green approaches had been included. AV suggested that at least a fairly general policy, such as that used at Long Ashton, may be acceptable. SC asked members to look at the policies in the document and TG, AR and MP were asked to research these issues and let PB have their thoughts prior to the next meeting.

5.  Finance: AR had submitted his grant application to ADC, who had asked for a more detailed timetable. SC suggested that it was hoped to get to the Regulation 14 Consultation stage by June 2020, with the Reg. 15 in July.

6.  Any other business:

•  MP for Walberton, Nick Herbert: SC reported that he had decided not to stand again at the coming General Election; the likely replacements had little knowledge of West Sussex.

•  Communication: AV will place an article in the Parish News giving a general update; each month up to the Reg. 14, through Parish News and Emails, we will tell residents about the proposed changes.

•  Affordable Housing: AR reported on a CPRE led seminar he and PB had attended explaining ways in which affordable housing could be generated for a community. A lot of information from a good selection of speakers. 30% of new housing estates had to be affordable (50% in SDNP). Affordable meant normally 80% of market rent through grants and equity share schemes through Housing Associations. Social Housing rents were much lower and were related to Housing Allowances.

7.  Date of next meeting: 2.45 pm on Monday 16 ^th December 2019 followed by a Christmas visit to the Holly Tree.

Minutes of a meeting held on Monday 16 ^th December 2019

1.  Apologies for absence: Bill Pethers, Teresa Gess (for lateness), John Kilford (with seasons gretings) and Paul Fisher.

Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Bill Langridge, Andy Vawer, Malcom Porter, Andrew Ratcliffe, Alan Gess, Bob Rogers and Peter Brown.

2.  Minutes of the meeting held on 11 ^th November 2019: were approved.

3.  Matters arising:

•  Draft Review of Neighbourhood Plan : an updated version of the Plan had been circulated for comment containing the new policies approved at recent meetings. SC thanked PB and Maureen Chaffe for their contributions. SC reported on a number of improvements and changes that were needed; members were asked to read through the document carefully and let her know any other necessary amendments, which she will pass on to MC. AR thought more detail should be given about care needs and provision - especially mention should be made of the re-opening of Walberton Place Care Home.

•  Climate Change : SC reported that at a recent meeting the Parish Council stopped short of declaring a Climate Emergency; to do so would be very time consuming and potentially a drain on resources. However, a review had shown that WPC has recently been very active in environmental activities - e.g. energy conservation, cycling, tennis, recycling, etc.

Members agreed that Climate Change as such should not be the subject on any new policies per se, although our new policies fit in well with the philosophy. To develop specific policies would require considerable research and delay, if policies were to be genuinely evidence based.

4.  Finance: AR reported that the Locality grant had been received and committed. The £5K grant from ADC had been approved.

5.  Progress on work with AECOM:

•  A report on the Site Selection meeting with AECOM on 27.11.19 had been on circulated. Their first draft assessment of the potential housing sites would be circulated very soon. They would use a Red, Amber and Green approach indicating how acceptable the sites were when measured against planning policies, including the NP. It was noted that some 30 houses proposed in the current NP have yet to be built: if a further 60 sites are to be put forward, that will mean the new NP will propose a total of 90 units. Strict application of policies mean that an extra 60 will be difficult to find - SC reported on discussions with AECOM concerning the National Trust field at Fontwell; whether or not the field is recommended in our Plan, it is almost certain that there will be development there sooner or later.

Recently WPC has become aware of a serious shortage of child care facilities in the parish - a situation to be exacerbated when the Fontwell Meadows site is developed. The NT field may be able to solve that need. Further discussion with the NT will take place.

SC calculated that, since November 2016, 24 new dwellings had been given consent and yet which were not anticipated in the NP. This fully justified our proposed Windfall policy.

Members were asked send to all any comments they might have on the Site Selection assessment from AECOM no later that Friday 20 ^th December. (Naturally, BP, BL and PF will not comment on their own sites) That will enable an agreed response to be prepared early in January.

•  SC and PB also reported on a meeting on 10.12.19 with other members of AECOM concerning the SEA. Their draft Scoping Report was circulated immediately prior to this meeting; any major inaccuracies should be sent to PB no later than Friday 20 ^th December. The Scoping Report sets out the environmental parameters and will be sent to the statutory consultees: Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency, who will have 5 weeks to raise any special concerns.

AECOM had received our latest amended draft NP and their next task will be to assess if there are reasonable alternative approaches that have not been explored.

6.  Timetable: SC suggested that the aim should be to produce the Draft NP by the end of February; the Steering Group will then consult residents by way of a Neighbourhood News and an Open Day on 21 ^st March. Display boards will show what is intended and where; new environmental policies will also be illustrated , all of which will need good plans. TG offered her help on mapping and AR agreed to book the boards from MC.

7.  Any Other Business: PB referred to the importance of flood risk in assessing sites; an official flood risk map from the Environment Agency need to be part of our evidence base.

8.  Date of ext meetings:

•  Monday 8 ^th January 2020 at Mallards at 4pm to agree our response to AECOM

•  Monday 27 ^th January 2020 at the Pavilion at 2pm

Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Minutes of a meeting held on Monday 27th January 2020 in the Pavilion

1. Apologies: John KIlford; Bill Pethers; Alan Gess
   Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Andrew Ratcliffe, Paul Fisher, Bob Rogers, Bill Langridge, Malcolm Porter, Teresa Gess, Andy Vawer, Peter Brown.
2. Minutes of the meeting on 16.12.19: were approved. SC regretfully reported that John Kilford had retired from the Steering Group, which had benefitted from his expertise and experience over a number of years.
3. Matters arising: PB was asked to check what material needs to go on the Evidence Base, including local Flood Map.
4. National Trust Field at Fontwell: SC reported on a meeting she, AR and PB had with the National Trust property team. A plan had been circulated of a possible layout of a mixed development there of 40 dwellings including 4,3, and 2 bedroom houses and 4 flats. Land would also be provided for a community child care facility. This form of development would meet the need for more modest dwellings compared to some developments and the child care facility would meet an urgent need. The Steering Group supported the proposals in principle, although members felt that more consideration should be given to the siting and design of the child care facility, to protect them as far as possible from air pollution from the A27 Trunk Road – a concern voiced in a message from BP.
5. Site assessment by AECOM: A draft report from AECOM consultants had been circulated for comment. This assessment measured all 26 of the sites under consideration against National Planning Guidance, against Arun District Council’s Local Plan, the South Downs National Park Local Plan and the made Walberton Neighbourhood Plan. The very detailed study started with sites considered by ADC’s HELAA report; and then other sites on the Steering Group’s list. This was an important filter which identified most of the sites should not be considered because they were not inconformity with planning policies, or were not available or deliverable.
   It is recorded that members – BL and PF - who declared a direct interest took no part in the discussion relating to their properties. Each site assessment was carefully discussed and AE COM’s findings were nearly all accepted. An exception was Site Q - land to the rear of Longwall where the HELAA assessment wrongly said the land would not be available in the foreseeable future: it should refer to the owner having put the land forward to the Steering Group in 2019. AECOM had categorised the sites with traffic colours: Red: not suitable for development; Amber: may be suitable and should be considered; Green: suitable for development.
   After much discussion it was decided:
   1. All those shown Red were not suitable for further consideration, with the exceptions of Manor House and Longwall, which will go forward for further information. Those rejected are: Spindlewood, The Pines, Land off Arundel Road, Land off Wandleys Lane, Land to the rear of Woodlands, Choller Estate alongside Barnham Lane, Pigeon House Farm, Land south of Wandleys Lane, Land to the north of Eastergate Lane, Land west of Yapton Lane, Cherry Tree Nursery, Land to the rear of Lansdowne House, Land at Freeman Close, Land at Walberton Green.
   2. Of those shown Amber, the following will not go forward as no specific proposals have been received and therefore the impact cannot be assessed: Arun House, Walberton House, Land south of Walberton and Choller Estate south of Eastergate Lane.
   3. Other Amber sites were rejected as being clearly in conflict with the made NP for Walberton:
      • Site 11 Land east of Yapton Lane (Gladman) which is too large in scale, is outside the BUAB, encroaches into the open countryside between Walberton and Binsted and would be harmful to the village’s setting.
      • Site D Land west of Tye Lane (Langmead) which is too large in scale, outside the BUAB, would damage the setting of the village in the countryside, and has been strongly opposed by the residents in the early 2019 survey.
   4. The three sites shown Green will be recommended for approval
   5. The three sites – at Sunny Corner, at Lanes End House and land at the rear of Woodcroft – that have now received planning consent cannot be included, but should be noted in the parish assessment.
   6. As a result, it is proposed that the following sites will be included in the draft Reg 14 submission and will feature in the Open Day consultation 0n 21st March:
      • Site 3 Sussex Business Park (SC to consult ADC)
      • Site 7 Manor House, Binsted – if SDNP are not opposed (PB to enquire)#
      • Site 12 Gracelands Farm, Fontwell
      • Site B National Trust Field at Fontwell
      • Site H Dower House, Walberton
      • Site Q Land at rear of Longwall
      PF had researched the number of planning consents for new dwellings since April 2017 : the total was 55 that were not in the made NP An additional 22 in the NP are likely to be completed by the end of 2010. This encourages the adoption of a windfall policy in the Reviewed NP..
6. SEA Update: Statutory consultees were to respond to AECOM by 3rd February; a report should be available next time.
7. Reg 14 progress:
   • SC reported Maureen Chaffe was making good progress on continuously updating the text and absorbing new policies as agreed by the SG. It was noted MC should be referred to as our NP administrator.
   • PB presented the latest version of the Biodiversity report, which was approved
   • The SG were keen to pursue a new policy to protect special views from the villages that need protection; an aerial photo was circulated showing tentative thoughts. MP agreed to research this and report with a recommendation and photos, where possible, to the next meeting.
   • The Evidence base needs to be brought up to date so all is there prior to the Open Day.
   • PB agreed to draft text in support of Local Green Space additions: Fontwell Meadows and Avisford Grange open areas.
   • All members were asked to read the latest Reg 14 document and pass any comments online, which AV will organise.
8. Climate Change: so far it had been agreed not to contain a specific policy on this topic, although one used by Arundel TC will be considered next time. SC reported on WPC’s approach to be highlighted in the Parish News.
9. Finance: The £5K grant from ADC had been received; expenditure so far covered time by MC and Mark Wardle.
10. Future publicity/communications: SC emphasised the importance of the Open Day 10.00-3pm on Saturday 21st March – as many members as possible needed in attendance. Publicity by Parish News, posters, Email, face book and website. A separate Neighbourhood News was thought not to be necessary. 2 pages of a NN in April will give a feedback from the Open Day.
11. Any other business
    1. To note WPC have been invited to a meeting with a developer of land at at the corner of Yapton Lane and Lake Lane, just outside the parish.
    2. PB to bring a final draft of the Archaeology report next time.
    3. BL pointed out that the proposed development at The Pines was misdescribed in the AECOM report – it was not for affordable housing – rather self build and custom built house for local people.

Meeting ended at 4.50p

96 Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Minutes of a meeting held in the Pavilion at 2pm on Monday 10th February 2020

1. Apologies for absence: Alan and Teresa Gess and Bill Pethers
   Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Andrew Ratcliffe, Malcolm Porter, Andy Vawer, Bill Langridge, Paul Fisher, Bob Rogers, Peter Brown
2. Minutes of the meeting on 27.01.2020: were approved.
3. Site selection: SC reported on a very useful meeting with Kevin Owen of ADC which had confirmed the worrying fact that ADC can currently only identify housing sites for the next 3.7 years – well below the necessary 5 years under the Local Plan. KO was able to clarify the following related to the choice of housing sites:
   • ADC would support the inclusion of the Sussex Business Centre as it would be regarded as “redevelopment” providing 11 dwellings by way of conversion and 3 new build.
   • Longwall – HELAA was wrong and planning consent had only been given for a single dwelling with a garage and two additional garages (1974). A large development of 14 units had been refused.
   • Spindlewood – KO agreed it did not conform with current policy, but that ADC would have to bear in mind the shortfall if an application is made.
   • It was confirmed that the NP will need to identify 60 new dwellings.
   Separately, SC reported that Donna Moles asked that a “modification statement” would be required to accompany the Reg 14 Draft.
4. Archaeology: PB presented a report detailing the justification for including an archaeology policy in the NP. While some historical features are given statutory protection – Scheduled Ancient Monuments – other sites are recorded and logged on WSCC’s Historic Environment Record but have no formal protection. The report highlighted several sites that need a degree of protection with the recommendation of a formal policy to be added to the Reg 14 Draft. An improved map was being developed. This was agreed and PB was thanked for his work.
5. Views and vistas: MP had researched the idea raised at the last meeting that the more important views and vistas in the villages should be protected. A first draft of the text with some photos was being circulated for members’ comments. Each selected view would be described against criteria and illustrated. For this item to be in the Reg 14 Draft a rapid response was requested: all suggestions of improvements and suggestions as to which views to protect should get to AV no later than Friday 14th February. Comments need to be shared via Share Point.
   Views should be identified in all three villages; SC reported that the Fontwell Meadows development site was being slightly redesigned to improve views within and from the houses. A view from the site looking across the green space should be considered.
6. Indicative Timetable: momentum must be maintained and this had been shared with ADC. SC and PB would be meeting with Maureen Chaffe on the 17th January to move forward the drafting and design of the Reg 14: the aim is to be able to send it to ADC at the end of the month.
7. Scoping Report: the statutory consultees had responded on time and AECOM were now to move on to the SEA programme, where they review alternatives to the proposed NP policies and their rationale. Once they have the Reg 14 Draft they will make their environmental appraisal. To take this work forward SC, AR and PB would be meeting AECOM during the week commencing 24th February.
8. Communications:
   • Open Day 21st March: much to do: proposed sites and new policies need to be clearly illustrated and explained : AV to draft suggested layout and he could also assist with the printing. PB was asked to write to the landowners whose land we are proposing for development. AR agreed to draft a complete list of all 26 sites and a few words saying why they were or were not selected. SC would organise the posters, webpage, Emails, etc.
   • Parish News: a double page for the March issue; AV to draft a general statement about the Open Day.
   • Neighbourhood News: end of April with update.
9. Climate Change: PB would ask MC to add an additional core objective: “To plan for climate change and work in harmony with the environment to conserve natural resources.”
10. Finance: AR warned that invoices for publicity, printing, and administration from this year’s Locality grant need to be paid by the end of March.
11. Any other business: It is important to get the Evidence Base on line soon and to ensure relevant correspondence appears on SharePoint. AV will join the meeting with MC on 17th February.
12. Date of next meeting: subject to complementary arrangements with AECOM, the next meeting will be at 2pm on Tuesday 25th February.

The meeting ended at 3.50pm

97 Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Minutes of a meeting held at 2pm on Tuesday 25th February 2020 at Mallards

1. Apologies for absence: Teresa and Alan Gess, Bill Langridge, Malcolm Porter
   Present: Suzi Clark (Chairman), Andy Vawer, Peter Brown, Paul Fisher, Bob Rogers, Andrew Ratcliffe and Bill Pethers.
2. Minutes of the meeting on 10.02.20: were approved
3. Matters arising:
   • AR confirmed he was drafting a report on why the Steering Group decided on which sites to put forward
   • Views and Vistas: MP had made a good start on this report and AV was taking it forward. It was agreed to add two more views to the list: two from Binsted Lane across the valley and the view north from North Pound. Photos should be sent to AV.
4. Timetable: SC reported on the time table she had agreed with ADC. A copy of the working brief must go to Donna Moles by 29th February; Donna will react within 3 weeks. Any necessary changes will then be carried out prior to the Reg 14 Consultation being sent out on 20th March with our Open Day on 21st. Consultation ends on 1st May. The final version to be submitted to ADC by 1st June (Reg 15) who will then send it out to various bodies until 27th July (Reg 16). The independent examiner will start work on 7th September. During October ADC and WPC agree final amendments with the Referendum taking place in early November – possibly the 5th.
5. Reg 14 Consultation Draft: The Steering Group adopted a number of amendments to the working draft, which PB would convey to Maureen Chaffe. SC, AV and PB would ensure relevant material was placed on the Evidence Base. PB also to ask MC to amend map for Longwall to show access from The Street.
6. Sites Assessments: AECOM had now delivered their final report which gave support to the decisions taken by the Group. Of the 26 sites, four sites were confirmed as suitable: Gracelands, NT Field, Dower House and Longwall. Seven other sites were potentially suitable and underwent appraisal; of these only Sussex Business Park was selected for inclusion. It was important that AR’s report on the selection process was clear on why certain sites were not accepted.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment: that morning there had been a meeting with AECOM who was to work urgently on the Environmental Report. They will carry out an environmental assessment on the selected sites – plus land at Choller Farm and east of Yapton Lane, because those sites have not yet been formally assessed. Part of their brief is also to look at alternative decisions we might have taken, measured against planning policies. They undertook to submit a draft of their review of the whole plan by 6th March and their review of the site choices no later than 17th March. PB would urgently ask AECOM about the Habitat Regulations Assessment, which had not been mentioned.
8. Finance: AR reported that adequate funds were in hand to meet outstanding expenditure.
9. Date of next meeting: at the Pavilion at 2.30pm on Monday 9th March – to arrange details of the Open Day 10.00-3pm on 21st March

98 Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Minutes of a meeting at The Pines at 2.30pm on Monday 9th March 2020

1. Apologies: Bill Pethers, Alan and Teresa Gess
   Present: Suzi Clark (chairman), Bill Langridge, Peter Brown, Andy Vawer, Paul Fisher, Andrew Ratcliffe, Malcolm Porter and Bob Rogers
2. Minutes of th meeting on 25.02.20: were approved
3. Matters arising:
   • Reg 14 pre consultation with ADC: No feedback expected until Thursday 19th March; hopefully will not affect Open Day material.
   • Habitat Regulations Assessment: Ryan Putt of AECOM says it is unlikely to impact on essentials and any amendments can be made after Reg 14 consultation has been completed. Likewise, the SEA is progressing and AECOM suggest a few minor additional points to strengthen some policies. The SG may be reluctant if they are saved policies.
   • Views and Vistas: the report is nearing completion and AV undertook to circulate it for early comments. Not all the photos are perfect and, again, they can be replaced before Reg 15.
4. Open Day on 21st March 2020: Members had made a start on drafting the various display boards, which would be as follows:
   1. What is New? This headlines the changes to the made NP as an introduction to the Open Day consultation. It will also invite people to respond using post-its, etc. (SC)
   2. Site Selection: this explains how we have reviewed 26 sites and how they have been measured against national, ADC and NP policies.
   3. Rejected sites: We say why we have rejected most. Need to explain HELAA and particularly why the amber sites are not acceptable. It was noted that ADC had again revised their HELAA list which in effect promoted Langmead’s land, west of Pigeon House Farm, Sussex Orchard, Wandleys Lane and Choller Farm. Possible numbers to be included. (AR to circulate text)
   4. Three Selected Sites: Dower House, Longwall and Gracelands. Very simple content as no working drawings have yet been submitted. Our text will give reasons for selection. (AV/AR)
   5. Sussex Business Park - Site as selected: Agents for the owners may attend – PB waiting for confirmation. We will display the plan we have got unless they provide a better one. Our text will explain reasons for selection. (AV/AR)
   6. National Trust Field at Fontwell: NT employees will be in attendance and will bring map of proposals. We will explain our reasons for selection.(AV/AR)
   7. Biodiversity Corridors: parish map will show corridors and side text will be as PB drafted; copy of report on table here. (PB)
   8. Archaeology and Flint Walls: archaeology map and text as PB drafted with archaeology map and original flintwall survey on table. (PB)
   9. Views and Vistas: Map of vistas and photos to illustrate; reasons for each one. (AV)
   10. What’s next? Ask for contributions and outline the programme; refer to the Reading Table for more information (SC)
5. Open Day – details:
   • Posters: designed and SC distributing for display asap.
   • Publicity: AV has in hand – Facebook, Twitter, Websites; Parish News(SC)
   • Members to attend from 9.30; BL , AG and TG apologies.
   • AV to print 2 copies of the Reg 14 draft – will ensure it is the latest version from MC; also copies of the new policies on reading table
   • Capture of residents views: BR to provide 2 flip charts; SC to provide badges, post-its, pens. Afterwards BR to analyse.
   • Timetable: AR,AV and PB to put display together from 2pm on the Friday 20th. Members arrive at 9.30 on 21st; doors open to the public at 10.00 and close at 3pm. Then all help to clear away.
   • CANCELATION? We hope not – otherwise it would delay whole process by minimum of 6 weeks.
   • No refreshments for public; tea/coffee available to SG members: PB will bring sugar/milk
6. Any other business:
   1. SC recommends members to read Ford parish proposals
   2. PB to alert MC that updated Reg 14 needed by AV on 18th March to add to Evidence Base; also Scoping Report and Survey results from 2019 should be available. PB to ask MC what else must go on the Evidence Base prior to consultation.
   3. All must check their emails on the Thursday 19th in case urgent action is needed when ADC feedback is received.
7. Date of next meeting: this will follow the completion of the Reg 14 consultation period; it will be in the Pavilion on Monday 4th May at 2pm.