Agenda item

The Chairman advised the meeting that one question  and one statement had been submitted to the meeting. 

The question had been submitted by Mr Richard Armstrong, who was present at the meeting  to address Council.  The statement had been submitted by Normanby-by-Spital Parish Council, who had been unable to send a representative and as such the Monitoring Officer would read the statement to the meeting.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Armstrong and invited him to put his question to the meeting: -

“How do WLDC expect to respond to the overwhelming comments and feedback received for a Normanby by Spital Single Neighbourhood Plan? 

·         Will WLDC decide to endorse a single plan and simply note the residents feedback in the consultancy Neighbourhood Plan documents or

·         Will they chose to intervene and advise Normanby Parish Council that residents clearly want a joint plan with Owmby? 

·         Whilst WLDC may not have the power to overturn the Normanby Parish Council decision, WLDC I feel have a moral duty to act and mediate with Normanby PC over this injustice and lack of respect for the villagers they are meant to represent but simply don’t.

Considerations: -

The situation is about a lack of trust from Normanby Council towards both its residents and Owmby Parish Council and even West Lindsey District Council and the Localism Act.

Residents overwhelmingly support a Joint Plan and we have collected approximately 100 letters/emails of support all from residents, all within the consultation period and all of which were willing to sign.

Additionally a Petition signed by 138 residents requesting the Parish Council reconsider reinstating the Joint Plan was completely ignored in November 2019 and not even mentioned.  How can that be right? Normanby Council may argue that residents have been coerced into signing the petition and neighbourhood plan support letter.  I am afraid that is not true.  Me and 8 other very honourable residents of this village received those signatures very easily and very willingly from residents of the village.  Residents clearly want and demand change and want a joint plan.  The Localism Act empowers residents, but Normanby simply don’t listen and are stopping democracy working.  It feels like the real reason the Joint Plan was voted down was due to long standing personality clashes and a lack of trust in both Owmby and West Lindsey District Council.  This is evidenced in one of the three attachments I have provided – please do read them especially paragraphs 4 and 6 and the reasons to object to the joint plan, as this evidences how a lack of trust, is impacting rational decision making. Another important letter is the letter I have provided from the Chairman of Owmby Parish Council.

West Lindsey’s Officers recommend that you agree to two separate plans, on the technicality that the village boundaries can be withdrawn.  How does this leave 138 villagers and democracy in our village. And finally, please leave this meeting knowing you made the right decision and only decision in support of localism.  Please vote for a joint plan and end the charade which is affecting everybody together in Normanby and Owmby.  Together we are better and stronger and please remember the main reason for objecting is simply because Normanby cannot get on with Owmby and it is not the joint plan which is at question.

Thank you for listening and for your time and support.”

Mr Armstrong had submitted a number of supporting documents which had been provided to Councillors under exempt cover.

The Chairman, as Member Champion for Neighbourhood Planning, responded as follows: -

“All previous applications to prepare neighbourhood plans in the district have been determined under delegated powers. In reaction to, as you note, the overwhelming comments and feedback received for a single plan, The Leader of the Council decided that this should instead be a matter for Full Council to consider and determine at tonight’s meeting.

The application is the subject of item 11 for which there is a detailed report for Members’ consideration covering: the background to the application, residents’ responses, and how the applications should be determined. Accompanying the report is a separate document running to about 130 pages containing all the responses received and noting that the majority oppose the single plan in favour of continuing the joint plan. The Council is therefore taking this matter very seriously and it would be unreasonable to think that they are simply noting resident feedback. It should also be said that Nev Brown cannot recall making such a suggestion.

As previously mentioned the application for a single plan for Normanby is being given special consideration by Full Council on tonight’s agenda under item 11. A report is available together with a document containing all residents’ responses. Most relevant to the question is that the report sets out how the application for a single plan should be considered and determined. It explains what actions should be taken to ensure that the application is dealt with procedurally in order for this Council to comply with neighbourhood planning legislation. 

You are correct in saying that WLDC does not have the power to overturn Normanby Parish Council’s decision. This is quite true. Indeed under neighbourhood planning legislation parish councils like Normanby Parish Council have sole power to decide to prepare a neighbourhood plan and also to withdraw from one.

WLDC has played an active advisory role in the preparation of the joint plan and has endeavoured to help resolve the current issue with the single plan application. The Council’s Neighbourhood Planning Officer has been in regular contact with the parish clerks of Normanby and Owmby PCs and joint plan group members and helped draft a terms of reference for the two parish councils and the steering group to agree governance arrangements that were questioned late last year. I myself (Cllr England) with the Ward Councillor for Normanby parish have been involved in detailed discussions with Normanby Parish Councillors and residents to help resolve the matter. It is considered the Council has done all within its limited duties and powers to help overcome the situation.”

The Chairman thanked Mr Armstrong for his question and advised him and the meeting that he would ensure the same response was sent in writing.

The Chairman then requested the Monitoring Officer read the statement as submitted by Normanby-by-Spital Parish Council, as follows:-

“Our comments relate to the application for a single neighbourhood plan. 

We analysed 100 letters: 3 were not named or addressed

72 on template letters 

25  individual letters

Including 8 non residents

Concerns have been raised by certain individuals who felt obliged to sign what was put in front of them and who openly admit to not knowing what it was about.  Some are from very vulnerable residents, who were not informed that their details would be placed into the public domain. 

Not all households were approached by the “Action Group”.

We would like to thank WLDC for all their help and understanding regarding this matter.”

The Chairman thanked the Parish Council, in their absence and the Chamber noted the comments.

.

.