MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SOMERBY PARISH
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STEERING GROUP
13th December 2016
Somerby Methodist Hall
Present
Mary Anne Donovan (Chair)
James Brown
Angela Fisher
Ros Freeman
Pat Fynn
Carl Powell
Kerstin Hartmann
Minutes taken by Kerstin Hartmann
WELCOME/APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Melanie Davies, Colin Marlow, Carl Powell left early, James
Brown arrived late,
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
None were declared
ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD: 15TH NOVEMBER 2016
The minutes were unanimously agreed and adopted.
Proposed by Mary Anne Donovan
Seconded by Pat Fynn
CHAIR’S REMARKS
MA introduced KH who has taken over the admin role for NP. MA thanked Kathryn Staley for all
her work for the NP and wishes her well for the future with hopefully some more time.
MA reminds of MLP deadline on 19/12/16 and raises sending email to Burrough on the Hill and
Pickwell to remind people of the deadline and no contributions going to be accepted after the
19/12/16. PF points out that the 19/12/16 is still included as she had confirmed with Melton
Borrough. MA to send emails.
MA raises that in recent housing group meeting it was mentioned that not all SHLAA sites might
be going through hence a vision statement may be necessary as e.g. organic growth which will
be something to talk about later in the meeting.
BUDGET
MA reports that JB has had a look at the budget and that it will come to more than expected
because of the cost of the referendum. PF informs that Melton Borough Council is going to pay
for the referendum.
THEME GROUPS
Agenda change as CP has to leave early, questionnaire to be discussed first.
1
QUESTIONNAIRE
AF reports on changes to the household questionnaire, also some questions are raised and
some points are discussed in depths and great detail.
Section 1 Demographics
Change to standard demographics; two age groups have been added: under 6 year olds; 7-18
year olds. CP points out a mistake to be corrected as one group is 19-25 followed by 30-39. AF
to amend to 19-29.
Section 2 The Parish
AF has added amenities PF and CP had emailed. MA raises facilities and issues as car may be
needed to get to them. AF refers to transport section and those issues being covered there.
Section 3 Housing
Discussion about statements in housing section. RF raises that it needs a question to give/ask
for choice/preference between one big development and small developments. AF reports that
this has been considered but difficulties how it may be perceived as it may divide the different
villages within the Parish. PF suggests to have different kind of people testing the questionnaire,
this may throw up difficulties or show duplications, and should get three people of different ages
to test it. MA expresses that questionnaire on the whole was fine also confirms that there should
be a question addressing smaller or one big development. PF and CP raise that smaller or big
should be defined by number of houses as e.g less than ten or more than ten houses. PF raises
that this may limit available brown field sites such as Southfield farm or Nesbitt’s. Discussion
about 1-5 scale or number of houses as answers to this question re smaller or big developments.
MA suggests to have a choice of number of houses, also expresses that both versions are fine,
and that it was more important how the houses are going to be built not a question of if they are
going to be built.
CP raises to include born in the Parish in the housing section as not everyone moved to
Somerby but some lived here all their life. AF to add.
Discussion about question re difficulties selling house in Somerby. RF gives a few examples of
houses which had/have been on the market for years and suggests that one of the reasons may
be the higher cost of living apart from high house prices in the Parish which makes it unattractive
for young families. CP suggests to leave the question in.
MA quotes from another neighbourhood plan re design of houses: ‘density of houses should
reflect existing housing density and environment/countryside’.PF points to especially Somerby
houses having a high density. MA points out that this was the case along the High St in the
center of the village but not on the fringes of the village, also relevant was the density in relation
to the environment and countryside/landscape. AF feels that this was a point to fine to be
included in the questionnaire and gives example of Langham neighbourhood plan as they ran six
drop in sessions after their questionnaire where people could contribute further and discuss
other details.
Discussion around question in housing section ‘Do you know of any available sites for
development within the Parish not already put forward (see map)’. PF asks which map will be
used. AF expresses difficulties with this as map showing proposed sites is only Somerby village
map and not for the whole of the Parish. MA asks ‘what do we gain from asking about other
sites’. This question should be asked during consultation in June but not necessary in the
questionnaire. Other option being discussed as could ask ‘Do you know of any other available
sites for development within the Parish not already put forward’, also this question would not
need a map.
Section 4 Environmental
AF introduces the environmental section of the questionnaire which is currently on separate
sheets. MA comments on the approach that it was good to ask directly about local policies, also
better to refer to Parish policy, and references to sites should be amended to settings of
buildings. AF to amend. Further discussion concerns ‘protecting the green spaces which form
the layout of the village and the distinction between open spaces (landscape), green spaces
(e.g. verges or green with bench) and local green spaces (used spaces e.g. playing field). PF
points to local green spaces which can be designated spaces. MA adds that green spaces can
now become designated spaces as well. Discussion around kind of responses to Parish policies.
2
AF favours 1-5 scale keeping how to analyse data in mind. AF lists important open spaces
including trees or dark skies.
MA raises language as e.g. ‘how important are the….?’. Words to be added to paint a picture of
the environment as e.g. deeply rural. AF follows this up and suggests to change question into
‘how important is it to you?’.
PF points to features or how often they are being used as being two different things. PF and RF
give examples of valuing something in the Parish but not necessarily using it themselves.
Discussion around changing it to scale 1-5 answers or to drop question about frequency of use.
JB points out that it was important to know how frequently it is being used. AF points out that
there may be a duplication as in section 2 there is a question about frequency of use and part 4
of section 4 may not be needed. This would create space for other amendments especially for
painting the picture of the environment which will need more words.
Section 5 Economy
PF points to list on employment section and asks if it could be done another way. MA raises EC2
and other options re including warehouses, distribution, storage, food procession, medium scale
manufacturing?
CP reports on email exchange with MBC when asking for their help re business/employment
data. MBC could not provide and admit that they do not have any data evidence on employment
within the Parish. JB estimates that the abattoir and the pig farm outside Pickwell may employ
around 20 people, also detail is unknown.
Subsection of economy -Tourism
MA quotes from MLP: ‘…resist planning applications if adverse effect on tourism’.
PF points out that dog waste bins are being supplied through parish council and if more were
needed to let them know as parish council could buy another one if other site was
identified/requested.
KH asked if Wifi hotspot (as spoken about in economy theme group) could be added.
Section 6 Transport
Discussion around speed and if this question should be taken out. PF suggested to ask people if
they ha any ideas as to what could be done about speeding cars. Previous speeding surveys
have shown that it was an issue in all areas across the Parish. MA points out that there is data
regarding speeding available already. It was decided to take it out.
AF raises the rolling out of the questionnaire. RF and AF will work through questions/answers.
PF asks about the prize draw and anonymity and favours delivery and collection door to door,
maybe making use of the 15 people who are regularly delivering Towards. RF raises the issue
that people could fill in more than one questionnaire and how to ensure that this was not going to
be possible. PF raises that this could be prevented by door to door distribution/collection. Also
poor response rate from a particular area could be identified and followed up. Household
questionnaires could be numbered. How many per household? It was agreed it should be two
per household. PF not sure about number of houses in the Parish but will check and let KH after
the meeting. KH to check with B&H Melton how quickly questionnaire could be printed and get
idea about cost for about 800 copies of 14 pages, double sided, in colour. MA raises target date
of second week in January. Online completion of questionnaire being discussed and how to
ensure that duplications are not possible. JB suggests that online completions should provide
email contact details. MA reports that Angela Clarke was happy for poster to be displayed in her
shop window to advertise the neighbourhood plan to people in the parish, also poster to hang up
in the pub, this should be done before xmas period as more people around who will see it. RF to
be involved, also awaiting Leslie Walker to get back about this. Cover of questionnaire was
discussed and it was agreed that AF and JB were going to look into this and decide.
Theme group reports cancelled as too late
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be held on Monday 9th January 2017. Date and venue to be confirmed.
3
Adopted and signed this …………… day of ……………………………………… 2016
………………..
4