Arun's Plans for Swimming and Sports Centre and the Mewsbrook Site
In February 2014 the Independent Examiner of the Littlehampton Neighbourhood Plan (an Arun District Council Appointee) introduced changes to the Submission Draft Plan, which included a revision to the Policy for the Swimming and Sport Centre Seafront Site, so that it could be flogged off for housing development against the wishes of the Town Council and Community.
During the same period a Feasibility Study had been commissioned to investigate future provision of Swimming and Sports facilities in East Arun, and the Consultants' recommendations were presented to the Arun Leisure and Tourism Infrastructure Working Group at the beginning of July 2014.
>>Click Here to read a report on the meeting
During the same period a Feasibility Study had been commissioned to investigate future provision of Swimming and Sports facilities in East Arun, and the Consultants' recommendations were presented to the Arun Leisure and Tourism Infrastructure Working Group at the beginning of July 2014.
>>Click Here to read a report on the meeting
Who's Neighbourhood Plan - And Who's Examiner?
Terry Ellis’ letter regarding the Littlehampton Neighbourhood Plan
Littlehampton Gazette 6th March 2014
“Further to Councillor Mrs. Brown’s comments on page 5 of the Gazette on 27.02.14 responding to the ‘Town is shocked by ‘Devastating’ change to plan’.
What a complete piece of absolute nonsense is being spouted, yet again, by ADC Council Leader Mrs. Brown. In a exercise of sheer effrontery she tries to blame OUR Town Council for the reason we have ‘yet to agree to the examiner’s recommendation’ A recommendation only made by the Independent Examiner after a last gasp attempt by ADC to thwart the Littlehampton Neighbourhood Plan, a serious Plan put together by OUR Council and the people of Littlehampton.
The delay is due to ADC’s attempted manipulation and intervention on our plan. It is not Littlehampton Town Council trying to be perverse; merely they are trying to protect our Town from the rapacious desires of ADC, and by the way, with our support.
Littlehampton Town Council has been forced to take this protective stance, by the refusal of Mrs. Brown and her Boys to accede to the wishes of the people of Littlehampton, in that we absolutely do not want to see our existing Seafront amenity, the Swimming Pool and Leisure Centre site turned into grotesque blocks of flats, sold to the highest bidders from outside the Town. We wish for the site to be retained for Leisure purposes. A point made clear at every turn over the last few years.
Mrs. Brown and all your Boys please listen, listen well, the people of Littlehampton do not like what you are doing, the people do not like you blaming our Council for only doing their job and protecting their Residents.
· You colluded in taking away our Cinema, we fought back, result – we now have our Cinema.
· Neighbourhood Plan - you are trying to take it from us, we will fight, now and at the next ADC elections, perhaps you are abusing your power.
Why do you consider this site is your Land? It belongs to the people of Littlehampton.”
Littlehampton Gazette 6th March 2014
“Further to Councillor Mrs. Brown’s comments on page 5 of the Gazette on 27.02.14 responding to the ‘Town is shocked by ‘Devastating’ change to plan’.
What a complete piece of absolute nonsense is being spouted, yet again, by ADC Council Leader Mrs. Brown. In a exercise of sheer effrontery she tries to blame OUR Town Council for the reason we have ‘yet to agree to the examiner’s recommendation’ A recommendation only made by the Independent Examiner after a last gasp attempt by ADC to thwart the Littlehampton Neighbourhood Plan, a serious Plan put together by OUR Council and the people of Littlehampton.
The delay is due to ADC’s attempted manipulation and intervention on our plan. It is not Littlehampton Town Council trying to be perverse; merely they are trying to protect our Town from the rapacious desires of ADC, and by the way, with our support.
Littlehampton Town Council has been forced to take this protective stance, by the refusal of Mrs. Brown and her Boys to accede to the wishes of the people of Littlehampton, in that we absolutely do not want to see our existing Seafront amenity, the Swimming Pool and Leisure Centre site turned into grotesque blocks of flats, sold to the highest bidders from outside the Town. We wish for the site to be retained for Leisure purposes. A point made clear at every turn over the last few years.
Mrs. Brown and all your Boys please listen, listen well, the people of Littlehampton do not like what you are doing, the people do not like you blaming our Council for only doing their job and protecting their Residents.
· You colluded in taking away our Cinema, we fought back, result – we now have our Cinema.
· Neighbourhood Plan - you are trying to take it from us, we will fight, now and at the next ADC elections, perhaps you are abusing your power.
Why do you consider this site is your Land? It belongs to the people of Littlehampton.”
TAKING THE CHARTER FORWARD
August - October 2013: Consolidating Community and Council views
7th August
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: Discussion with Littlehampton Town Council Officers
Representatives of the Charter Group and Civic Society met Claire Potter (Town Planner) and Peter Herbert (Town Clerk), who are largely responsible for the Neighbourhood Plan Drafts with advice from consultant Town Planner Neil Homer, to discuss the Representation. Ten policies had been highlit in the document and all were reviewed in detail.
Proposal A, Holiday Trade Policy, was felt to be outside the competence of the Council and could be best be addressed by other agencies.
Proposals B, C and D resulted in an offer by the Civic Society to participate in and help co-ordinate carrying out a review of the aesthetic and social qualities of the town and fringes with a view to developing a design guide that would inform decisions made by the Design Panel to be set up as a result of the Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal to include various Schedules listing features and facilities considered to be of significant value as appendices to the Plan was recognised as a useful tool that would enable the plan to evolve in detail without needing to go though the process of formal revision.
Proposal E and the suggestions for Policy 4.3 were felt to be outside the competence and influence of the Town Council, but existing housing studies that considered a range of strategies for delivering housing would be referred to. The officers undertook to review the Health provision issues.
Policy 5: West Bank Housing - LTC was preoccupied with making sure NP policies meshed with the Local Plan and did not conflict with it, and West Bank policy was tilted by the anticipated Strategic Allocation of 1000 houses. However shortly before this meeting the District Council had set back the date for agreement on the Local Plan to a point well after the planned submission date of the LNP thus removing the necessity to make specific provision for the Strategic Allocation. This made the Officers feel able to express an attitude that tried to take account of the wishes of the West Bank Residents but also put out a clearer and truer message about the Town's priorities. The Charter Group was interested to see that the Highways Authority raised observations that were very similar to some of our points.
Policies 11 and 12: Housing at the Swimming / Sports Centre and Hotel at the Windmill - The Officers felt that by referring to housing at Swimming Pool site and to the Hotel at the Windmill site the Plan was being realistic about likely longterm changes, and was making sure some sort of control would be possible, however the Community clearly feels any such statement gives the impression of a degree of approval. It was agreed that neither the Community nor the Town Council wish to see this development, and that the suggestion comes from the Draft Leisure Policy, is mitgated slightly in the approved version, and is not in the Local Plan. We have to recognise the site owners are free to make proposals, but the Neighbourhood Plan policy should express what the Community wants.
The responses to the Representation can be seen in the Summary Document which records all Representations received on the Pre-Submission Draft.
12th September 2013
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: LNP Steering Group Meeting
The Agenda split discussion of the revised proposals for the Submission draft into five chunks, with provision for a 'forum' in each part (Three minute limit, and a forum not a debate, maybe they were expecting lengthy heated polemics). But practically everyone in the gallery had made a Representation on the draft, and maybe felt they'd had the opportunities to make the points, and the proof would be in the eating, so only about five people had prepared points they wished to raise, and of course they didn't all come at once because of the 5-way split. So the format changed permitting the public gallery to make contributions at opportune times, and, as the Town Clerk Peter Herbert said about a third of the way through, it became more of a Town Meeting than a Committee.
The whole thing was good-tempered, and some of the Steering Group members and Peter Herbert himself ended up more or less voluntarily getting points included that we'd almost accepted weren't going to go in quite as suggested - so whereas we were resigned to having only a few Public Green Spaces named, plus the whole of the Arun Green Infrastructure List as an appendix, it's ended up with all major public open spaces being specified. It was positively confirmed that the Public Green Space called The Green is defined as the entire strip from the river to the far end of the Mewsbrook. This means all the bits we're concerned with are in there, the Norfolk Gardens, The Ruby Wood and the areas around the Dome.
Virtually all the issues we raised have been addressed - some admittedly on the basis that they are outside the scope, or safely contained in other hands. In the meeting quite a number of other tweaks were agreed, and ways were found of expressing the Community (which seemed to include the Steering Group Members) attitude even when there was no way to make the point into a Policy. This applies to Disabled Access issues and Groundwater (which the Plan Consultant Neil Homer acknowledged was a major consideration south of the Downs, and one for which there is no centralised data) in addition to the ones in the Representations.
The idea of Appendices and a Design Guide / Town Study seems to offer the flexibility that seemed to be a problem before. It was definitely worth doing the Policy-by-Policy review arising out of the Public Meetings, because it established that the Community isn't just interested in a few current problems but can think positively about the future of the town in all its aspects. And the existence of the Community Charter and all the accompanying fireworks meant that the Group Members really had done their homework.
Useful contributions to the discussion from the Public Gallery by Derrick Chester, Margaret Bolton, Wilf Daggett, Mrs Bridges, Diane Bayley, Angela Tester, Phil McErlain, Mike Dunne, Rod Brown and Terry Ellis - apologies if any names were missed.
3rd October 2013
COMMUNITY CHARTER: LTC Full Council Meeting
On the Agenda :
Item 9: To receive the letter and Community Charter sent to the Council by the Littlehampton Civic Society. Council is asked to consider whether to support this Charter.
In the Public Forum section at the start (Agenda Item 7), Terry Ellis outlined the amount of support that had been gathered, the work that had been undertaken (consideration of options for the Windmill, response to the Neighbourhood Plan, interaction with the Flood Action Group), and gave a summary of the feedback from the public and the issues they were interested in, showing pie charts which revealed that Cinema is still the biggest issue. He also said that he had taken many opportunities to point out the differences between Town and District Councils, and their priorities and ways of working.
The Council dealt with Item 8 (Issues with County Council and District Council, in particular the witholding of central government monies from the parishes), and then it was Peter Herbert who talked-in Item 9, starting by saying Terry's excellent introduction had totally taken the wind out of his sails, and so he commented about the way the Charter Group had interacted and contributed, and how much work and thought had gone into this.
James Walsh opened the general discussion by talking about the ADC undertaking to discuss options with possible operators, and how there had been little action and no progress, and no possibility of a longer lease being agreed on the Windmill site for Cinema and Theatre use. He praised the Charter for making clear statements on these issues, and particularly laying down the absolute requirement to keep cinema and theatre together. There was considerable discussion about the Cinema, with the Mayor adding several statements of support and agreement to the Councillors' comments.
There was fulsome praise from several Councillors for the Charter initiative and the way it had researched and underlined public views, and the contributions made to the Neighbourhood Plan. Mike Northeast spoke directly to Diane Bayley saying there had been many run-ins with the Civic Society in the past, but this seemed to usher in a new era of creative co-operation.
A resolution was agreed in support of the Charter and its Principles, put up by the Independent Cllr Hulmes, which was carried unanimously and positively.
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: Discussion with Littlehampton Town Council Officers
Representatives of the Charter Group and Civic Society met Claire Potter (Town Planner) and Peter Herbert (Town Clerk), who are largely responsible for the Neighbourhood Plan Drafts with advice from consultant Town Planner Neil Homer, to discuss the Representation. Ten policies had been highlit in the document and all were reviewed in detail.
Proposal A, Holiday Trade Policy, was felt to be outside the competence of the Council and could be best be addressed by other agencies.
Proposals B, C and D resulted in an offer by the Civic Society to participate in and help co-ordinate carrying out a review of the aesthetic and social qualities of the town and fringes with a view to developing a design guide that would inform decisions made by the Design Panel to be set up as a result of the Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal to include various Schedules listing features and facilities considered to be of significant value as appendices to the Plan was recognised as a useful tool that would enable the plan to evolve in detail without needing to go though the process of formal revision.
Proposal E and the suggestions for Policy 4.3 were felt to be outside the competence and influence of the Town Council, but existing housing studies that considered a range of strategies for delivering housing would be referred to. The officers undertook to review the Health provision issues.
Policy 5: West Bank Housing - LTC was preoccupied with making sure NP policies meshed with the Local Plan and did not conflict with it, and West Bank policy was tilted by the anticipated Strategic Allocation of 1000 houses. However shortly before this meeting the District Council had set back the date for agreement on the Local Plan to a point well after the planned submission date of the LNP thus removing the necessity to make specific provision for the Strategic Allocation. This made the Officers feel able to express an attitude that tried to take account of the wishes of the West Bank Residents but also put out a clearer and truer message about the Town's priorities. The Charter Group was interested to see that the Highways Authority raised observations that were very similar to some of our points.
Policies 11 and 12: Housing at the Swimming / Sports Centre and Hotel at the Windmill - The Officers felt that by referring to housing at Swimming Pool site and to the Hotel at the Windmill site the Plan was being realistic about likely longterm changes, and was making sure some sort of control would be possible, however the Community clearly feels any such statement gives the impression of a degree of approval. It was agreed that neither the Community nor the Town Council wish to see this development, and that the suggestion comes from the Draft Leisure Policy, is mitgated slightly in the approved version, and is not in the Local Plan. We have to recognise the site owners are free to make proposals, but the Neighbourhood Plan policy should express what the Community wants.
The responses to the Representation can be seen in the Summary Document which records all Representations received on the Pre-Submission Draft.
12th September 2013
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: LNP Steering Group Meeting
The Agenda split discussion of the revised proposals for the Submission draft into five chunks, with provision for a 'forum' in each part (Three minute limit, and a forum not a debate, maybe they were expecting lengthy heated polemics). But practically everyone in the gallery had made a Representation on the draft, and maybe felt they'd had the opportunities to make the points, and the proof would be in the eating, so only about five people had prepared points they wished to raise, and of course they didn't all come at once because of the 5-way split. So the format changed permitting the public gallery to make contributions at opportune times, and, as the Town Clerk Peter Herbert said about a third of the way through, it became more of a Town Meeting than a Committee.
The whole thing was good-tempered, and some of the Steering Group members and Peter Herbert himself ended up more or less voluntarily getting points included that we'd almost accepted weren't going to go in quite as suggested - so whereas we were resigned to having only a few Public Green Spaces named, plus the whole of the Arun Green Infrastructure List as an appendix, it's ended up with all major public open spaces being specified. It was positively confirmed that the Public Green Space called The Green is defined as the entire strip from the river to the far end of the Mewsbrook. This means all the bits we're concerned with are in there, the Norfolk Gardens, The Ruby Wood and the areas around the Dome.
Virtually all the issues we raised have been addressed - some admittedly on the basis that they are outside the scope, or safely contained in other hands. In the meeting quite a number of other tweaks were agreed, and ways were found of expressing the Community (which seemed to include the Steering Group Members) attitude even when there was no way to make the point into a Policy. This applies to Disabled Access issues and Groundwater (which the Plan Consultant Neil Homer acknowledged was a major consideration south of the Downs, and one for which there is no centralised data) in addition to the ones in the Representations.
The idea of Appendices and a Design Guide / Town Study seems to offer the flexibility that seemed to be a problem before. It was definitely worth doing the Policy-by-Policy review arising out of the Public Meetings, because it established that the Community isn't just interested in a few current problems but can think positively about the future of the town in all its aspects. And the existence of the Community Charter and all the accompanying fireworks meant that the Group Members really had done their homework.
Useful contributions to the discussion from the Public Gallery by Derrick Chester, Margaret Bolton, Wilf Daggett, Mrs Bridges, Diane Bayley, Angela Tester, Phil McErlain, Mike Dunne, Rod Brown and Terry Ellis - apologies if any names were missed.
3rd October 2013
COMMUNITY CHARTER: LTC Full Council Meeting
On the Agenda :
Item 9: To receive the letter and Community Charter sent to the Council by the Littlehampton Civic Society. Council is asked to consider whether to support this Charter.
In the Public Forum section at the start (Agenda Item 7), Terry Ellis outlined the amount of support that had been gathered, the work that had been undertaken (consideration of options for the Windmill, response to the Neighbourhood Plan, interaction with the Flood Action Group), and gave a summary of the feedback from the public and the issues they were interested in, showing pie charts which revealed that Cinema is still the biggest issue. He also said that he had taken many opportunities to point out the differences between Town and District Councils, and their priorities and ways of working.
The Council dealt with Item 8 (Issues with County Council and District Council, in particular the witholding of central government monies from the parishes), and then it was Peter Herbert who talked-in Item 9, starting by saying Terry's excellent introduction had totally taken the wind out of his sails, and so he commented about the way the Charter Group had interacted and contributed, and how much work and thought had gone into this.
James Walsh opened the general discussion by talking about the ADC undertaking to discuss options with possible operators, and how there had been little action and no progress, and no possibility of a longer lease being agreed on the Windmill site for Cinema and Theatre use. He praised the Charter for making clear statements on these issues, and particularly laying down the absolute requirement to keep cinema and theatre together. There was considerable discussion about the Cinema, with the Mayor adding several statements of support and agreement to the Councillors' comments.
There was fulsome praise from several Councillors for the Charter initiative and the way it had researched and underlined public views, and the contributions made to the Neighbourhood Plan. Mike Northeast spoke directly to Diane Bayley saying there had been many run-ins with the Civic Society in the past, but this seemed to usher in a new era of creative co-operation.
A resolution was agreed in support of the Charter and its Principles, put up by the Independent Cllr Hulmes, which was carried unanimously and positively.