Purpose of report
To consider whether or not to pursue preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan (NP)
Background
In February 2022 BPC considered a report on the possibility of preparing a NP to cover the civil parish and adjacent unparished area of Gilesgate . Subsequently, parish councillors attended a presentation by DCC Spatial Policy Team and agreed to establish a small working group with Gilesgate Residents Association to progress the idea.
The working group, comprising Patrick Conway, Carole Lattin, Stephen White, Shirley Overton from BPC, Richard Hornby from GRA and John Ashby formerly of Durham City Parish Council, has met on a number of occasions. Progress reports have been presented to BPC at its monthly meetings.
Progress
Six indicative themes for a NP were idemtified, namely Unallocated land; Retail & Leisure; Housing; University development: Sustainability; Features & Facilities.
In July BPC agreed “ that without prejudice an application for a defined NP area to cover the parish council and unparished area covered by Gilesgate Residents Association should be submitted to Durham County Council.”
The outcome of that application is expected by early November.
BPC also agreed a newsletter should be delivered to all households and businesses within the proposed NP area. That exercise was completed by mid September, was designed to elicit initial feedback about a NP and to advertise a public meeting on Tuesday 4 October.
Feedback
To be successful a NP must have the support of local people. Should one be progressed its final adoption is dependent on a majority vote in a referendum in the defined NP area.
Prior to the public meeting 19 responses had been received by email, all supportive in varying degrees of a NP. They were invariably supportive, some came to the meeting. Others tendered apologies.
The meeting was attended by four working group members, three additional parish councillors and 17 members of the public ( 3 Carrville, 3 Belmont, 9 Gilesgate Moor, 2
unparished)
Initial scepticism was expressed about the value of a NP, based on perceptions of the planning decision making process. Dissatisfaction with decisions eg HMOs and the former civic centre building were cited.
However, as discussion progressed there was general agreement that a NP, given its statutory standing, sitting alongside the County Durham Plan (CDP) could be beneficial to the area. It was noted all planning applications affecting the area would have to be assessed against any NP policies in addition to those contained in the CDP and National Planning Policy Framework.(NPPF) This was confirmed at the conclusion of the meeting
Questions were asked as to whether NP policies took precedence over the CDP and NPPF and the weighting attributed to a NP. It was explained applications would have to take account of all documents. Decision makers when making a judgement would then come to a conclusion about the relative merits. Planning decisions are an art rather than a science
The Apollo site application was used as an example of where a NP policy about unallocated land could have strengthened views about its use.
The meeting agreed unanimously with the indicative themes should a NP be pursued. In the completed feedback forms traffic calming, anti social behaviour and the former Mono site were mentioned. The proposed NP area was also agreed without dissention.
Twelve feedback forms were completed. In summary specific interest in the themes were as follows. Unallocated sites 3; Retail & Leisure 0; Housing 4; University Development 2; Sustainability 7; Features & Facilities 2.
County Council officers emphasised the importance of providing a solid evidence base to justify proposed NP policies. The external assessment of the NP, prior to it going forward to the local referendum, would be critical. Therefore, a team committed to undertaking that work and producing policies for further consultation was essential. While interest was expressed this should not be interpreted that individuals were willing to undertake practical work other than comment and contribute to the discussion on any proposals.
Conclusion
There is support for a NP and a feeling that the process itself could be helpful in developing a more informed discussion about the future of the area.
Other than some email feedback indicating specialist skills eg urban geography, social housing, the consultation did not result in offers of particular knowledge and experience of the indicative themes.
However, 21 individuals,have provided contact details either email or phone indicating they would like to be kept informed of progress.
Funding has been investigated. An award of up to £10,000 could be available over the period of preparation from Locality, a government agency. Once the designated area has been approved an application could be made. It should however be noted that an award is for a particular financial year and future submissions would be dependent on central government committing to future allocations to Locality.
There is support for a NP, though the response to the newsletter and indeed attendance at the public meeting was disappointing. Mitigating circumstances may be relevant. Other commitments on the night of the meeting and the venue, some distance from parts of the proposed NP area, have been cited.
Recommendations
The working group concluded and recommends to BPC and GRA
- A full NP should not be embarked upon at the present time.
- The working group should continue and initiate preparatory work, inviting the interested individuals to further discussions commencing in November.
- The working group, together with interested individuals, begin work on a couple of the identified themes
- Following distribution of a further newsletter in the Spring, three or four further public meetings are arranged at locations throughout the proposed NP area
- A report is presented to BPC and GRA in April or May 2023 when an absolutely final decision should be made.
- No external funding applications should be made at the present time and that BPC in its budget planning consider contingency provision for 2023/24.