Facebook Twitter

You are here:    Forum - Neighbourhood Plan - Queries with the NP questions and answers

Queries with the NP questions and answers

I am very concerned with the inclusion of green fields in the N Plan. This will weaken the defence of any such fields in the future. The NP team have devoted 50 lines in its Q&A page on the website, to give the Community their reasons for selecting 3 'greenfield' development sites outside the village boundary on New Rd. I would like to respond to this. However as there is a word limit on this forum please click here to get my response. Please do read. Thank you.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 25/01/2018 10:27 am

Mr Wright, I believe that question has been asked of David Pheasant previously and he has responded with the Parish Council's response, this being a PC web site.

The text of the NPPF guidance is now in place under FAQ's I see however there seems to be some duplication in the questions part. I will get this corrected but I shall also now respond to the actual issue of Brown and Green land next.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 06/02/2018 7:18 pm

Mr Boros. I too would like the opportunity to place the entire text here, alongside my detailed explanation, however, I am limited to 500 characters and do not have the same opportunity of limitless words, with a one sided perspective which will be emailed to all residents. Can you confirm that if I respond to your Q&A statement, you will place my response alongside your Q&A and email it to all residents. In the sake of clarity and transparency.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 06/02/2018 5:34 pm

Mr Wright, I wish to put up the verbatim wording of the NPPF definition for reasons of clarity and transparency. The words are not overly long or complex, and it is a matter of general interest to all residents.
That way residents may read the words for themselves and make their own judgement about the matter.

Once up the words will require little further explanation from me

Posted by: Peter Boros | 06/02/2018 5:05 pm

Mr Boros. Why not explain why I am wrong here rather than on a one sided Q&A that I am unable to respond to?

Posted by: Charles Wright | 06/02/2018 3:10 pm

Mr Wright I was of course responding to both you and Mrs Stone given your questions made on this thread that she originated. I will arrange for the NPPF definition to be posted under FAQs as I believe you are wrong and will refer you to why I believe that when the full text is available for all to see. Many thanks

Posted by: Peter Boros | 06/02/2018 3:06 pm

Mr Boros. I am responding only upon my comments, not those made by Ms Stone.
To be a ‘previously developed land’, the land is required to have first been occupied by a permanent structure. The exclusions only come into play once this criteria is satisfied. Perhaps, like I have taken the trouble to do, you could take advice on the matter.
I am delighted to hear your openness to consider alternatives.
Thank you.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 05/02/2018 7:26 pm

Mr Wright, As I recall, Mrs Stones proposition was to substitute part of site 27 which was erroneously claimed to be a brown site for New Road? Site 27 is demonstrably not a brown site as NPPF confirms. As an unremediated Quarry site 6 is certainly not greenfield. Given we have a requirement for 33 dwellings where would you therefore suggest they go? As we said from the outset we consider this to be the least worst outcome. If there are alternatives we have missed then more than happy to review.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 05/02/2018 7:00 pm

I am delighted to see your change of heart.
I agree the definition is straightforward and site 6 is greenfield. Of the three legal & planning advisers I checked with, not one considered it to be otherwise and were unable to see how it could be interpreted otherwise.
The expressed wishes of the whole community was not to build on greenfield sites, so again, I’m delighted to hear you are listening to them.
We look forward to your proposals which meet the requests of the community.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 05/02/2018 6:28 pm

Thank you Mr Wright. As Chair of the SG I am simply trying to balance the expressed wishes of the community as a whole with those of smaller groups of residents.

The definitions we have discussed are quite clear and factual.

Ultimately there is more than adequate opportunity for feedback to the consultation draft and evidence base and then also a fully democratic forum being the local referendum in order to properly consider and quantify people's views.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 05/02/2018 5:57 pm

Mr Boros. My interpretation of the definition has been verified by two separate sources. I am satisfied with the accuracy of my comments so will be removing nothing from this forum. Considering your attitude and tone in response to any points raised, I see no merit in proving feedback on your plan.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 05/02/2018 5:05 pm

Mrs Stone, Thank you for your response. Given that these definitions of brown and green land are largely a matter of fact and clearly set out in the relevant statutory guidance I am disappointed but perhaps not compl surprised that you do not accept what I have referred you to. I would have thought at the least you might accept that it is not appropriate for housing to be placed in the middle of the Green Gap which of course is precisely what the SG has been trying to achieve for the community.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 04/02/2018 6:21 pm

Mr Boros
Further to your post of the 1st feb, I just want to confirm that I appreciate that you have taken the time to respond however I am not in agreement with any of your points. With regard to site 6 SODC's own planning officer considers the site to be greenfield, and this is clearly stated in his report on the site to the planning committee.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 04/02/2018 3:01 pm

Mr Wright/Mrs Stone Thank you for raising a variety of issues regarding the statements made in FAQ’s and governance of the SG. I believe we have now provided the necessary answers to your queries and demonstrated that these are not well founded nor indeed your public statements opposing New Road correct. If I can help further then let me know. In the meantime may I suggest that your comments and statements/publicity are withdrawn and that you confirm that you agree site 27 is Green and 6 Brown.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 01/02/2018 11:32 am

Mr Wright, I am saying that the words defining 'previously developed land' specifically exclude quarries that have been remediated and also agricultural land. Those are directly capable of being related to site 6 and site 27. One is agricultural ie site 27 and the other is an UNREMEDIATED Quarry - Site 6 hence brown and site 27 Green. On this basis alone, we should not be considering site 27 for housing at all given where Mrs Stones and others line of argument started. Is that agreed?

Posted by: Peter Boros | 30/01/2018 6:37 pm

Mr Boros. Brownfield Definition - So you are saying the land was previously occupied by a permanent structure?

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 6:07 pm

Mr Wright, you would hardly expect a body that has worked hard for over a year with considerable time spent on researching facts and law to simply change things on a whim. I suggest you read the entire paragraph about previously developed land not just the beginning, and also what is said elsewhere about former Agricultural sites. The sodc link simply repeats guidance about the obligation to keep a register. There is no definition. As stated quarries NOT remediated are indeed Brownfield

Posted by: Peter Boros | 30/01/2018 5:40 pm

Following on... I do not recall seeing evidence that Site 6 ever had permanent structures and its previous use does not constitute 'previous development' under these definitions.

I trust you are not suggesting New Road is not deserved of a significant proportion of the Groups time considering the road could end with 50% of the plans proposed housing allocation on greenfield sites and agricultural land there.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 5:35 pm

Mr Boros. I had not realised residents were required to submit evidence to you. Apologies.
I simply Googled what Ms Stone directed you toward.
Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 59-003-20170728
£Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure,." "This excludes:.. land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes”.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 5:26 pm

Mr Wright,
The SEA as you have stated is new hence the revised timing that was provided by David Pheasant in his email to all residents and which is also detailed on this Web site as of 3 January. The roadmap is slightly flexible given such matters can arise and it is not always easy to find the time to do everything at once.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 30/01/2018 4:54 pm

Mr Wright, I mean that it believe everything I have said about brownfield land is accurate. If residents want to produce evidence of an error then we are always happy to listen and consider the evidence. I have researched the matter very carefully and believe what we say is perfectly accurate. If you have conclusive documentary evidence to the contrary then by all means send it to the SG team for review. We try to respond to questions as best we can, but we also have a wider duty than New Road.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 30/01/2018 4:45 pm

Mr Bartholomew. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Perhaps a maintained and detailed timeline in the NP area would prove helpful to all. The existing Road Map is a little vague.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 4:37 pm

Dear Mr Wright

If the RV Inquiry is in June, the NP will be near conclusion, thus will carry significant weight. If the RV Inquiry is later (which it may well be), there is a very good chance the NP will have been concluded.

I trust this clarifies the situation.

Please let me know if I can be of further help.

Posted by: Cllr David Bartholomew | 30/01/2018 4:29 pm

Mr Boros. May I kindly ask you explain what this means? "I do not have anything further to add to my previous comments about brownfield land."
Are you saying you don't agree and refuse to update the Q&A or you do agree and you will correct the Q&A which was emailed out to residents.
I do not find these communications to be particularly helpful.
Are you not actively seeking input and feedback during this process?

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 4:16 pm

Mr Bartholomew. Some clarification on timescales may be useful. I understood that due to an SEA, the plan would not be submitted for public consultation before the end of March. Allowing a minimum of 6 weeks public consultation and a further 6 weeks for examination, how do you see the plan going to vote before July, even assuming no changes are required as a consequence of consultation. Do I have these periods wrong?

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 4:05 pm

Dear Mr Wright

Based on other appeals I am involved with, I think it unlikely the Retirement Village Inquiry will be heard before June, by which time the Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan will be near conclusion, or even concluded, so it will have a very strong bearing on the Inquiry.

Posted by: Cllr David Bartholomew | 30/01/2018 3:37 pm

Mr Wright, I do not have anything further to add to my previous comments about brownfield land.
As has previously been indicated, the SG is producing the Consultation Draft of the Plan and its evidence base to put forwards for consultation. The document will then be posted online for public and other consultation for a period of 6 weeks all as provided for by the relevant legislation and as set out in the Road Map detailed in the FAQ's for the NP. A public meeting will be held at that time.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 30/01/2018 3:34 pm

Mr Boros.
As you are now aware of brownfield site definitions, perhaps you would be kind enough to correct the last Q&A as previously requested by Ms Stone.

Presumably the Retirement Village inquiry will conclude well before the NP is even submitted for consultation, so regrettably will have little or no impact on an inspector decision.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 2:59 pm

Mr Wright, The Retirement Villages matter is simply a by product and an example of why we need a NP. The appeal was only announced a matter of days ago. The NP has been in preparation now for well over a year. There is no question of rushing things, but we are at an advanced stage hence the desire to use the outputs for the Retirement Villages situation.
I am aware of the legislation on Brownfield sites.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 30/01/2018 2:30 pm

Mr Boros.
Ms Stone suggested you refer to the SODC & NPF definitions of brownfield sites. I have taken the trouble to do so & agree with her that site 6 is not brownfield. You could also refer to your own exhibition material which states site 6 is greenfield & site 27 is brownfield. A neighbourhood plan should be a considered long term vision for Shiplake and not something rushed through in an attempt to battle an individual application.

Posted by: Charles Wright | 30/01/2018 2:04 pm

Mrs Stone, I have no desire to sound rude, but we are aware of your concerns. We are all volunteers giving our time to the whole community not simply those opposed to New Road. Technically as agricultural land and buildings - still in part use, the definition of brownfield is not correct. Equally as an unremediated former quarry site site 6 is indeed Brown. The SG is aware as is the PC. We need to spend our time delivering a consultation draft and evidence as a priority to fight the Retirement V

Posted by: Peter Boros | 30/01/2018 1:32 pm

Response re Site 27 " Part 2

Development of the brownfield part of site 27 site would isolate the greenfield part behind it. There would be no vehicle access to it so development on this field would not be possible. Moreover, as is proposed in the NP for other sites, a ‘Development Boundary’ around it would contain development. To suggest that the use of a derelict built area would result in the two villages becoming joined is hardly credible.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 30/01/2018 11:52 am

Response to comments by Peter Boros re Site 27 -Part 1

There is a misunderstanding. It is not proposed that all of Site 27 be developed. It is not all brownfield, just part of it- 5200 sqm on Mill lane. This is an unused farmyard & 7 empty buildings screened from the road and with 2 vehicle entrances from the road. It is a small and separate part of Site 27, most of which is field. Development of this area would provide substantial ’planning gain’ and would not cause any further development.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 30/01/2018 11:51 am

Dear Joanne

New Road is an unadopted, private road and OCC would therefore not be involved in any resurfacing. Resurfacing would be a matter for the road owners. If you have still have concerns in respect of this, the Crowsley Road/New Road (CRNR) Management Committee may be able to assist you; they organised the resurfacing that was undertaken some years ago and they also take care of the ongoing maintenance.

Please let me know if I can be of further help.

Posted by: Cllr David Bartholomew | 29/01/2018 8:23 pm

Dear Cllr Bartholomew,
I appreciate your clarification for 'site 6', however, regrettably this offers little or no reassurance, as neither the NP nor OCC Highways are able to ensure the road will not become resurfaced as a result of such a significant influx of new housing and residents, (sites 7 and 8 also being on New Road) which could lead to the road becoming a main thoroughfare.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 29/01/2018 8:04 pm

Mrs Stone,
The SG has every sympathy with your views given your close proximity 3 sites you oppose off New Road. We must agree to differ on some of your technical comments. Every site will have its supporters and opponents that is the reality of NP's. A Key question we considered with 27 was it's location in the Green Gap. If the NP promotes this site what is there to stop the 2 villages being joined as a result of further infill developments? It would have been easy, but a mistake to select it.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 29/01/2018 4:13 pm


With regard to Site 6, the OCC comments relate purely to the access point and visibility splay. There is absolutely no requirement to upgrade the road. I have confirmed this in detail with the OCC Highways officer.

I trust this gives you some reassurance.

Posted by: Cllr David Bartholomew | 29/01/2018 2:32 pm

Comments on Peter Boros’s responses -Part 3
You have not addressed the fact that residents did NOT request development ONLY in or at the edge of the villages, as claimed. The possibility of development elsewhere was recognised.
 I wonder perhaps if it would be helpful for more considered comments to be provided in response to real concerns from a large number of residents. I would be obliged if you would please correct the misleading Q&A asap as this is misleading residents.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 28/01/2018 7:57 pm

Comments on Peter's responses:- Part 2
4.You have not addressed the concerns raised here about reserve sites.
5. What do you mean by 'at scale'? Are you saying you will consider this site for some housing? Fields adjacent to the brownfield site (including most of Site27), would presumably be protected by your proposed development boundary.
6) Site 6 is NOT a brownfield site. See the NPF and the SODC definitions of brownfield sites.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 28/01/2018 7:55 pm

Comments on Peter Boro's responses:- (in parts); Part 1
1.2 The 5200sqm brownfield site is a separate part of site 27 and within the NP plan. See NPF and SODC definitions of brownfield sites.
3. For site 6, OCC required that access be improved and that 'all ancillary works specified' be done. This is seen as a requirement to upgrade the road as specified by the applicant.
Many residents are concerned about the threat to New Road. It is not sufficient simply to dismiss this concern.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 28/01/2018 7:49 pm

This is a response to these queries:
1. Site 6 is a Brownfield and contaminated site NOT Green
2. OCC is NOT asking for road improvements in relation to site 6 and the 4 houses now under Appeal.
3. Site 27 is NOT in the Villages - It is in OPEN Countryside
4. Development of site 27 mid 'Green Gap'sets a precedent undermining protection of ALL the Green Gaps eg Retirement Villag
5. Development HAS to go somewhere hence why the SG proposes a Development Boundary and limited edge of village Devt.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 25/01/2018 5:53 pm

Login to post a reply

You are here:    Forum - Neighbourhood Plan - Queries with the NP questions and answers