Opinion: Examiner Did Not Support Residents Association Views On Housing Numbers For Effingham

Published on: 4 Mar, 2018
Updated on: 5 Mar, 2018

Cllr Liz Hogger

By Liz Hogger

Lib Dem Borough councillor and parish councillor for Effingham, in response to Chris Dick’s opinion piece: Time to Properly Thank the Residents Association for Its Neighbourhood Plan Input

I was closely involved in the preparation of Effingham’s Neighbourhood Plan, as both parish councillor and borough councillor for Effingham, and I find Chris Dick’s very muddled and inaccurate account of the Neighbourhood Plan’s preparation and the part played by the committee of Effingham Residents Association (EFFRA) extremely disappointing. Since this misleading account will remain on the public record on The Guildford Dragon, I do need to put that record straight.

Ably led by parish councillor Paula Moss, from the very start, Effingham Parish Council (EPC) worked hard to listen to everyone’s views, not just the “usual suspects” of parish councillors and the residents’ association committee.

The Neighbourhood Plan’s Examiner commented in his report recommending the Plan for adoption: “The extent of interest and participation by residents in the plan at the various stages is impressive”.

EPC asked Effingham residents how many new homes were needed in the village, and where those homes should be built. That was quite a challenge in a village washed over by green belt, and inevitably provoked a backlash from those who thought not a single blade of grass should be lost.

23 smiley faces and 19 sad on the Effingham Lodge Farm information board used during the public consultation on Effingham’s Neighbourhood Plan

The option of putting 60 houses on previously developed land at Effingham Lodge Farm (ELF) was just one of several suggestions for residential site allocations in the early days of plan preparation, and in fact, received lots of support (shown by the smiley green faces on the EPC poster). After more detailed consultation, EPC went for the preferred option of several smaller sites for new homes rather than one big site.

In the draft Neighbourhood Plan that went to the first formal consultation in 2016, the ELF site was allocated for up to six houses, not 60, and those six houses were conditional on the developer clearing the derelict glasshouses and returning the vast majority of ELF to open green belt.

Far from villagers who opposed the Berkeley Homes proposals being “let down”, the aim of the Neighbourhood Plan was to protect this farmland. Six homes on ELF would be consistent with planning policy in the NPPF for previously developed land, and the allocation included protection of the rest of the site as agricultural green belt.

The 2016 consultation showed that most residents agreed with EPC and strongly supported the draft plan. Two thirds (66%) of the 739 residents who responded to the formal consultation survey supported the ELF site allocation. Pleasingly, 73% supported the overall housing target of 62 new homes for local people, and there was majority support for all four of the site allocations for new housing.

Taking on board various comments made during the consultation, we then sent the Neighbourhood Plan for a second “health check”, which provided very positive and helpful advice on technical planning aspects of the plan. Chris Dick’s remark that the health check inspectors “were critical of the high housing numbers and some of the sites because they were within the green belt” is a gross distortion of what this inspector actually said in her report.

The Neighbourhood Plan examiner confirmed that the allocation of “up to six” new houses on ELF was the right number, and helpfully suggested some extra wording to strengthen the plan’s protection of the rest of that green belt land and to ensure the allocation was deliverable.

He asked for deletion of one of the residential site allocations and a reduced numbers of houses on another, because of uncertainty about the definition of “limited infilling”, but firmly supported the Plan’s overall housing target, now set at around 50 new homes to help meet local housing need.

So what part did EFFRA’s committee play in this? Whilst supporting many elements of the plan, they very publicly opposed the housing target initially, and fought the site allocations throughout the whole process, resisting the allocation of any houses at all on ELF until near the very end.

I do not agree with EFFRA Chairman Vivien White when she states that “EFFRA’s views were upheld by the examiner”. The examiner simply upheld the views of the majority of Effingham residents which were enshrined in the Neighbourhood Plan, including the limited residential development on ELF and on two of the other three site allocations.

Thanks are due to many involved in preparing the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan: to the Borough Council planning officers who gave us so much helpful advice and support, to all the organisations, including EFFRA, who took the trouble to give us their views, but most of all to the residents of Effingham parish.

Grateful thanks are owed to the volunteers on the advisory group, to the individuals who contributed to the detailed policies in the plan on the environment and wildlife as well as housing, and to the hundreds of residents of Effingham who gave us their views and then turned out on a cold February day to give a massive vote of support in the referendum.

Share This Post