Interactive webcast player

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Decision Meeting
Friday, 25th September 2026 at 10:00am

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Juliet Layton
  2. Officer
  3. Councillor Juliet Layton
  4. Officer
  5. Councillor Juliet Layton
  6. Officer
  7. Councillor Juliet Layton
  8. Officer
  9. Councillor Juliet Layton
  10. Officer
  11. Councillor Juliet Layton
  12. Officer
  13. Councillor Juliet Layton
  14. Officer
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Juliet Layton
  2. Officer
  3. Councillor Juliet Layton
  4. Officer
  5. Councillor Juliet Layton
  6. Webcast Finished

1 Cabinet Member Introduction

Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:00:04
Good morning. Welcome to today's cabinet member decision -making meeting. My name is Councillor
Juliet Layton and I'm cabinet member for housing and planning. I've got two officers with me
here today, Mark Harrison, who's a senior local neighbourhood planning policy officer
and Julia Gibson, democratic services, who's running the IT for us today to bring this
meeting to you live. The meeting is being streamed live as I said to the
council's website and all of the meeting papers are also available to view on the
council's website. So I hope officers you've turned your phones off on silent
I have just done that for mine and we are considering today chipping Camden
making of chipping Camden neighbourhood plan following a successful referendum
and also we're looking at Siddington and the council's responses to their
Regulation 18 consultation on the Siddington neighbourhood plan. Following
that we'll be looking at the procurement through a competitive
process of an independent examiner to undertake the examination of Siddington
neighbourhood plan at Regulation 17. So if I can ask the officers if they've got any
Officer - 0:01:24
interest to declare before we move on. I don't have any interest for Chipping Camden or Sydney.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:01:29
Thank you Mark and Julia's shaking her head. So I would like to move forward then to
Mark's overview of the report for Chipping Camden please.
Officer - 0:01:43
Thank you. Shipping Camden have been preparing their neighbourhood plan. It's gone through
the entire process of consultations and examination. A few modifications were proposed by the examiner
that we dealt with in a previous meeting.
But with those modifications, we ended up with
what we call a referendum version of the neighbourhood plan.
And our elections service has always run
a very smooth referendum where residents of Chip and Camden
and were voting on that version of the document to be adopted into the development framework.
There were 757 votes, which equates to a turnout of 36 .7%, which is a pretty good amount of
Maybe slightly above average I would say.
And there was 95 % voted in favour, voted yes,
and 5 % voted no.
So for it to be successful, it just needed a more than 50 %
to vote in favour.
Since this was achieved, the neighbourhood plan has already been carrying weight and being used
by our officers to determine planning decisions.
But we do need to formally adopt it into the planning development framework.
So just to explain, any applications, planning applications now in Chippenhampton will be
assessed against both the local plan, the current local plan, and this new neighbourhood
plan. So on that basis, I would recommend that you formally make the Chippenhampton
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:04:26
neighbourhood plan. Thank you. That's, yeah, it's very interesting isn't it how
how the plans and I think lots of people with neighbourhood development plans
whether, neighbourhood plans sorry, whether they've had them for a while or
whether they're bringing them forward is how they are going to sit with the new
local plan that we are looking to be submitting in December which will come
hopefully come good by the by 2028. So we don't think that they're gonna have to
be this is this is matching our new aspirations on a new local plan that
Officer - 0:05:08
we're currently working on or will there have to be refused do we think? Generally
speaking, neighbourhood plans that come forward including this one they they
don't allocate housing sites, they're less strategic in nature and they're more
focusing on locally specific things, heritage assets, green spaces that the
local plan might not always go into that detail. So they should be compatible
although I will mention this as we're adopting it today potentially and with
after the cooling off, sorry, the calling period for that decision, they could
review it as as soon as they like to. So if if something comes forward in the
local plan and they feel that necessitates a change in the
neighbourhood plan, there's no sort of minimum time they have to wait to review
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:06:15
it or modify it in some way. Thank you. Well that makes me, I know that this
question is out there with lots of, and you've probably had communications from
various parish councils or town councils that already got their plan. You said
they don't have to review. Is there a time that they should review once
a plan's made? Like with our local plan we should be starting to look to
you know we've been reviewing stuff within five years and we've got to make
sure that our land supply and all that which I know is completely different
but is there that kind of timescale that a neighbourhood plan should be reviewed
after X number of years anyway?
Officer - 0:06:54
Yeah the same five years applies. That comes down to really the housing
applications again so it will carry less weight after five years but things like
local green spaces and heritage assets they should still carry weight that was
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:07:22
slightly different. I know this is not quite to do with Chipping Camp and I
realise that I'm sorry but I think you know perhaps if people drop in to listen
or you know about plans it'd be quite interesting and I guess perhaps the
neighbours the town and parishes know all this but if they do a review it's a less
stringent process than going through from the beginning is it I mean like
with all the referendums and well you know reaching to a point of referendum
Officer - 0:07:57
that's quite a long process for most towns and parishes it depends how much
they're changing. If it's minor modifications it might not necessarily
need a referendum. It might need examination probably down to the examiner to
determine whether it's a minor or major modification that would require a
referendum. I suppose the only advantage of a review, they've got a plan already, they're
not starting with a blank piece of paper, so more the front end sort of preparation
would be a bit more expedient, but potentially all the procedural elements might still have
to take place here.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:08:49
Okay, thank you. Well, there are no members of the public to ask any questions and I haven't,
well I've asked some of mine. I think, would you like me to go to a vote on the Chipping
Camden one first or should we do this at the end? We'll do them one by one. So I'm absolutely
very content with this. I think the turnout for a vote is really quite good. You know,
means the town is really coming together. Interesting about the 95 % in favour. We'll
never know what was not in favour on their plan but it's a democratic process
and I think that's a very good turnout and I commend Chipping Camden for
all they've done for their to get this through. It's a long slow process and
it's going to be a good document that stands me in good stead as we've heard
against, you know, running along with both the local plan adopted
at the moment for us and the one in process at the moment.
So, yeah, I am absolutely happy to approve this and have a made
the re - I'm sorry, yes, the reason.
Well, because it has gone through all the processes.
We've the examiner has gone through examination stage.
They've done all the processes as they have to do and they took in the
considerations of our council comments before and so it's all the
process has been completed acceptably.
Okay, thank you. It's quite hard thinking of a reason because they've done very
well. So now we come to the second part which is Siddington and we're going to
look at the council's response to regulation 16 consultation on the
city to neighbourhood plan. So if we look at that first then we'll talk about
Officer - 0:10:53
procurement afterwards so if you'd like to do that Mark thank you. So Siddington
submitted their plan to us. Actually before that they held their own Reg 14
consultation across March, April and May of this year, which we commented on and
then they took into account the comments they received and amended their plan
accordingly and submitted it to us, which is Reg 15, and we accepted that in a
meeting on the 3rd of July this year. So now it's in our responsibility, the first
step was to hold a Reg 16 consultation, that's with relevant stakeholders,
statutory consultees and residents and people in that community. You might have a business
in that community or something like that. So that was open between the 16th of July
and the 26th of August. So we've received all the comments. They've been collated and
redacted and are you can view those in annex F. We don't do anything with those.
They will be passed straight to an independent examiner for them to consider
comments and if they're minded how the plan should be modified to take account
of those comments. As the District Council, as the local planning
authority, we should as well as running the consultation submit our own comments
to go to the examiner. I've consulted with many of my colleagues on the
policies sort of relevant to their specialisms and different planning
topics. So all together we've come up with this table at paragraph 15 .1 on
page 8 of today's report. So I'll just go through some of the policies and what
we're suggesting. Feel free to interject with any questions because there's quite
a lot of policies. So the first one, potentially the most contentious one, is
this green gap that they're proposing. You can more easily view it on Annex E,
which is the policy map for the Siddington neighbourhood plan. Essentially, we
agree with the premise which is to prevent the coalescence of Cirencester,
which over decades has edged closer and closer to
Siddington, to prevent the coalescence
of Simon Sester with Siddington.
So they're proposing this sort of green gap.
They have taken into account our comments from
Reg 14, which was that the National
Policy and Guidance says you have to have positively worded
policies, you can't just have a blanket ban on development.
So the policy now reads that it would support development if it didn't compromise the sort of
visual and physical openness between the two. So I think it's quite well worded.
Yes, the main issue is that we're now proposing to allocations, housing allocations on the
proposed as a green gap. So one is to the north side, I forget what that is, it's all
around the Siddington Road. We're connected to the built form of Simon Sester. So one
of the north side and one is in Hamlet, Rebecca, and Siddington. So as part of the local plan
we've had a lot of assessments done on all these allocations to bring them forward, including
on landscape. So that evidence, that new evidence, which is a very important part of the local
they wouldn't have had at the time of preparing this plan is showing that you
could have housing in those sites and it wouldn't compromise the openness, it
wouldn't cause coalescence. The only caveat to that is one of the sites, it
does say in that assessment you could build on the, this is the one in Upper
Sillington, you could build on this sort of southern half and the northern part of it
would have to be left open for that to be the case. So what we're suggesting we say
to the examiners that we support their policy, we support the approach, but that
based on this new evidence we have the green gap as drawn on their policies map
should go around these housing allocate proposed allocation sites. I mean
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:17:42
this is really a fine example of how this is coming to fit in with our
emerging local plan as we were saying before but there is a gap though they will still
have a buffer zone, as it were, between Syrinsester.
Sittington has the village and it has the upper Sittington,
is the more rural area, the north of Usain,
but then there is a bit that actually is touching
Syrinsester with a large buffer zone.
So, yeah, it's interesting how that's fitting in with that.
So thank you for that explanation.
Officer - 0:18:18
Yeah, I would say it's not like Greenbelt, it's not a blanket ban on development, but
any developer proposing housing there would have to go a long way to prove that there
was no physical, visual coalescence or impacts in that space.
And move on to policy two, which is settlement boundary.
Again, we're happy with the approach of having a settlement boundary.
The difficulty we have is that this is when this is examined it'll be examined
against the current adopted local plan and not the emerging one. So in the last
example on policy S1. We've got that landscape evidence that will go into the
local plan but you know we can use that evidence now. In the case of the
allocations that they haven't been adopted yet so for example for a
include allocations and incorporate those into the settlement boundary because they don't exist yet.
Until they're adopted in the new local plan.
So, therefore they've done a tight settlement boundary around the built form.
It's quite an unusual shape.
Normally, towns and villages, as they evolve,
fairly rounded in their shape, circular,
because there's also that hamlet of Upper Siddington.
It's quite an unusual settlement boundary,
and it just captures the built form.
I think normally we'd perhaps say there should be a little bit more give and they could perhaps
include some areas that would perhaps be classed as infill development and things like that.
But because we've got those allocations coming forward, I think we're quite content that
if we have those allocations, they can have quite tight settlement boundary.
And going back to the current local plan, housing numbers, they're sort of not required
to allocate or yeah so it's it's a bit difficult with the settlement boundary
because wherever you draw the line you're saying you can't build outside it
but that you're also saying inside it you kind of are welcome to build it's
supported so it's a bit of a tricky one but generally I think we're okay with
that. Just for reassurance that you know we've got an emerging and we've
got an adopted with policy one the examiner is going to know about that
the inspectors going to know about that because we've given that information but
they will take into consideration that because they will have that knowledge
that we've gotten an emerging local plan so even though these things don't
directly, you know, they can't judge on that particularly they but they do know about it.
So it will be in their in their heads that the emerging is is happening.
Yeah, that's the tricky thing. We all know about it. We all know what it says and what's coming but it's assessed against the
current local plan policies.
And actually we've got some examination at the minute, not Sillington, but they're being
assessed against the old MPPF because of the time they were submitted.
I was actually just going to ask you about that because we've got, is this on the old
MPPF 24 or are we looking at the 26 one for this application?
application. This one will be on the new one I believe. Okay because it's guess yeah okay thank you.
Okay so yeah policy one and policy two are the most contentious if you like
policies just just because of the strategic nature of them and trying to
make them compatible with what we're bringing forward and also meeting their needs and objectives
of Siddington, which is what the neighbourhood plan tries to do.
I'll just go through the remained of the policies.
So S3 is on housing mix.
Just have one comment there about being a bit more specific
about the number of units that might apply to.
It's very clear that it applies to every dwelling.
to be on sites of major development 10 plus houses or something like that. Policy four
is on general design principles. Harrison Boley, our head of planning services, provided
these comments. So yeah, once you get into like design policies obviously our local
plan, national policy has a lot of design policies. So yeah, just a case of getting
the wording correct so they all are compatible with with one another and
don't contradict each other and our officers when they're determining
applications will know they know the keywords and to get it right that they
can use it effectively when they're judging applications. Policy five is on
the old Talland school which is grade two star listed I think.
I think it's in a relatively dilapidated state.
So they're just trying to support reuse of that heritage asset.

11 Officer overview of the report

And our conservation officer Justin Aiten has provided comments just really to get that
balance between supporting development but protecting and enhancing heritage assets.
So he is very familiar, more than I am with the site, so he's got quite a few comments
there. Again, just to get the specific wording to ensure that's the case.
I'll come in again.
Because obviously I live quite close and I know this area and I know that site, which
is we're not talking about the edges and the boundaries.
Now we're talking about the middle,
just very close to the middle of the science of Siddington.
And yeah, since the Talon School moved out,
obviously things sort of degenerate, don't they, a bit.
So it's not looking beautiful, I have to say.
And I was really impressed with the amount of time
and work that Justin put into this.
Well, as actually every consultation,
Harrison and everything,
but I was particularly interested in this
and what he was suggesting.
And I think a lot of sitting to be looking
at how the possibilities could be with that.
So I'm very impressed with that.
Thank you, Justin.
Policy S6 is local green space.
So they're proposing 3A, which is the playing field, and B, the allotments.
They are already adopted in our local plan and I'm aware are due to be carried forward
into the next, into the new local plan.
So there is an element of duplication there but I don't think there's any harm in sort
including those again, technically already designated as well.
I like the belt and braces approach though because you know we know we've got it in
our local plan but also it's you just don't want anything falling away because if
something happens or whatever I don't think a duplication of that is harmful
at all. I think it's good to have things designated in the in the neighbourhood
plans. I agree they are proposing a new one which is Canal Lane. I did have a
comment on that but Canal Lane if you go along it is kind of in two parts the
southern part is essentially a lane with grass verges and hedgerows not
particularly significant or special in my opinion to warrant the designation, but the
sort of northern half of it, it widens out. It's got some nice traditional stone barns along one side.
There's some very old mature trees, there's views across the fields.
It's quite pleasant entering the village.
So yeah, I've just made that point on whether the exam is minded to include the whole of Canal Lane as proposed.
is obviously any green space that comes forward.
I mean, there'll be special elements of it,
but not every square foot of the whole green space
will be as special as the other.
So I haven't been, I've just raised that point.
I haven't been too strong in it.
So it might be that the whole, that the lane is included
or the examiner agrees that just the more special part
of it is included. Up to him to look at that and make that decision. Yeah. Well
from this point all of all of these comments just go to the examiner so yes
it'll be up to the examiner to consider them and decide. Although I will mention
that during the examination they they ask questions often as a written
exercise but I'll definitely send questions to the parish council and I
representing CDC will get a few as well so yeah sometimes to tease things out
and actually in the case of Chippin Camden on local green space wasn't quite
solved through the written questions so that's why we ended up having a hearing
there with the landowners to discuss local green space. But I doubt that will be the case.
Policy S7, Important Views, took our previous Reg14 comments into
account, so no problem with those. Policy S8 is on trees, hedgerows and woodland and down the
yard, head of natural environment has given us very usefully again a lot of comments on these.
I think generally, paraphrasing, we would have preferred to see more locally specific.
Obviously the local plan carries lots of policies in the national environment, as does the MPPF.
So I think we would like to see more specifically which trees, hedgerows and woodlands do you
protecting rather than generic wording. But again, Dan is putting a lot of
wording suggestions just to get that compatibility in the right phrasing that
makes the policies effective for when they use them in determining
applications. S9 is flooding and Joe Corbett, one of our senior officers has provided comments.
These are the same comments that we provided at Reg 14 because they didn't seem to have
taken into account. So yeah, the policy was unchanged to my knowledge. So I've just
included those again in their entirety. A lot of it focuses on SUDs and again
Joe is just trying to get the exact best wording. In the case of this policy, I believe it's
on the policies map, which is annex E. They've got a very good flood risk map, I believe.
Yes they do. So it's very interesting to look at. It covers the areas of flood risk. It covers
a great deal of the parish and some of the built form as well.
Just for clarification, we're looking here at sort of surface water and groundwater flooding.
I mean I know that Sillington has had, you know, flooding has impacted them quite
frequently and I know they've got some really knowledgeable people in
Sillington that have worked amazingly on trying to identify sources and what can
be made better and coming to meet, being really engaged. But you know when we're
looking at suds we're looking at sort of surface water drains and sort of problem
buildings and traffic and stuff. I mean this doesn't cover the Thames water
element because you know flooding and sewage kind of unfortunately go hand in
hand around it around here and that's a but this doesn't cover that particularly.
Policy covers all elements of flood risk but Joe's comments were
largely focused on the search I think.
But yes, I'm not a flooding expert and that's why I asked Jo, she's done a good job with her comments,
but yes it's similar to the other ones. She's also an expert in our field so
just suggesting wording again that would make the policies more
effective when we're using them. So you know when we provide these comments
they in a way they might be perceived as negative because suggesting changes and
things but it's genuinely to help them get a better policy that's effective
when it's used. Called with what we've got in I mean this will be in our
adopted local plan and will be in our emerging local plan but certainly water
management we're trying you know being more vigilant on but I think the
adopted local plan does that it's you can't right wrongs from the past that's
the problem isn't it it's how to deal with all that and that's that's difficult
but yeah that no Joe's done very well with that policy stan is on sustainable
transport and active travel Alan who's our lead in that area has provided some
Again, just to streamline the policy actually in this case.
A bit of duplication.
He's suggesting the main thing with this policy is it's not proposed for path as such.
but they're sort of supporting a footpath to go from Siddington, from sort of Siddington Road up to, what was it, the Tesco?
So there's been a lot of representations come, sort of objecting to that footpath.
Because it goes around, sorry I've forgotten the name of the road, but it goes around the
back of some houses.
I think they're just worried a bit about security and things like that.
Andalism work. It's all coming from Tesco.
You know from a purely planning perspective we're not so really
proposing or objecting to that. I suppose it is very confusion the the policy kind
of supports generally put paths in that direction to improve connectivity
although the policy map does have a very sure a very specific route so perhaps
that could be clarified because the policy would support a footpath that
didn't take that exact line as long as it's all linked Sillington to Tesco is the ambition.
Yes, we haven't addressed those comments directly. There are a lot that gathered a petition as for
the examiner to consider. We've done our comments of in isolation but just to make you aware that's
That's the kind of issue that's been coming forward.
And the last policy, S11, is on community facilities.
We support this policy and approach. I just had a little comment that I provided at Reg 14 as well.
that just the inclusion of the term employment uses might be supported so
just suggested that was taken out. Yeah I think that policy really obviously
they want to protect community facilities but then they have some
criteria about you know if it's no longer needed as a community facility,
how long it has to be marketed for, what other uses will be supported and
suitable employment was one of those which didn't really seem right to me so
I've just just raised that again.
Have they identified particular community
facilities on that policy?
I think they had.
I'm just double checking.
Yes, and they are Village Hall, St. Peter's Church, the Greyhound Pub, the playing fields
and the allotments that are also local green space, and the post office and shop and the
primary school. I don't quite understand how that would work with the employment
bit. You know the pub, the shop and the school are employing people, the village
hall is a community asset one would have thought. Anyway this is at this point
up to an inspector isn't it to decipher that. It's more the second part of
policy where it's saying if the facility is no longer viable, so as a
community facility, it needs to be marketed for 12 months for another
community use and then it says where this is not feasible for suitable
employment use perhaps they're saying that should if it wasn't a big community
use they'd prefer an employment you say to a residential occupation of the
building but anyway I've raised that we'll let the more narrative for that
because it seems like somebody's got an idea but that is quite interesting
and we'll leave that to the inspector to unravel.
The terminology just needs a tidy up.
Yes, yes. Okay is that everything on that update?
Yeah that's all the policies in our table so unless you have anything you want to add or change
I just proposed that we send that table as our representation into the Reg 16
consultation and it will go to the examiner for consideration when that
comes round. I've got nothing to add. I've chipped in with my various questions and
comments. I think it's very thorough. I think the work's been very
thorough by our officers. It's you know as we said it's now down to inspector
because I guess it might be feel a bit disappointing that the original
responses were not necessarily taken on there were one or two weren't there that
they hadn't, Siddington hadn't you know reacted to but we've got them back and
that that will be there like that so I think we can probably move on to which
I'm looking for now. The second part which is the procurement of the
inspector because I'm very satisfied with that. I don't know if you
need that saying anything more Julian for that. I just
meant and noted down that we're given the reason that there's been a thorough
officer support and preparation and we're happy then
if you think that covers everything.
I do indeed thank you very much and I think we can move on to the second part
of the recommendation for Siddington is to confirm that CDC will procure through
a bid process an independent examiner to undertake the examination at the
Siddington neighbourhood plan at reg 17. So I don't know whether you want to further
explain anything about that. Mark that would be good. Yeah so we've got all of the
comments. I think we had about 22 from memory in the region, in that sort of region. Representations
made through the Reg 16 consultation. Actually we collated into one representation the letters
about the footpath because it was all the same letter duplicated, signed by
different people. But you know the examiner will consider that as one sort
of planning topic. So there's probably a lot more than 22 responses.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:46:20
I just so wish that people realise, and I think we try and tell residents
that a duplicated letter or a petition does not carry the weight of individual
separate submissions. And we do try and tell residents that. Nobody's going to be
listening to this even though I'm saying it again. But that duplicated letter does
not help in any council. It's, you know, people need to just put their own words
and it's not, you don't need a great long letter or anything, you just need to
State what you're wanting to say. So thank you. Sorry
It's okay that is true but yeah
Officer - 0:46:59
You know, you could see why people feel strongly about this issue and they're trying to
Gather gather some consensus. I can see why they've done it, but but they'll all go to the
Examiner
so yeah, we've
collated all of those
redacted and that is annex F. If people want to look through the comments our
comments will they were just talked about in the last agenda item will be
added to those as well. So yeah the next step would then be to procure an
independent examiner. So that will follow CDC's procurement processes. I'll ask for
quotes from a few examiners that we're familiar with. They're probably the
most experienced in the country really and they're happy to do our plans here
So that's good.
I'll just assess them as usual on sort of cost and time and experience
and that sort of thing in our usual process.
I'm proposing quite a fast examination timetable for this one because after February our elections
team, so through March and April, will be preparing for the local elections. So,
proposing a potential referendum date of Thursday the 25th of February, that would
require quite an expedient and smooth examination.
So I've set out a table on page 20,
the agenda report at par 25 .6.
So yeah, we say there'll be an examination,
it sounds quite simple,
but there's lots of steps within that as well,
as you can see in that table.
and it overlaps Christmas.
But if it goes smoothly and we stick to time,
we should be able to do a referendum in February.
If we miss that date, elections can't do it
in March or April, instead of preparing
for the local elections.
So then it would be pushed to the local election day
on the 6th of May.
It would be done in tandem.
But yeah, that does delay it by a least.
two months so I'm very sure Siddington would have it done on the, well I know because I've
spoken to them about it but they would prefer to have it done on the in February at the end of
February but so that's what we will ask the examiners to sort of work towards and provide
costs and do it on that basis. But if there is a hiccup along the way, there's that risk
that is pushed into me instead.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:50:35
Yeah, I understand. I don't think I've seen a table quite so like this for this work.
But yeah, this is all to do, of course, with the fact that the local government have paused
LGR and was pushed us into having another election in May 2027, followed by another
one in May 2028. It's all going to be very cheap to do, like, sorry, sarcasm in public there.
But that's the reasoning for that. If this didn't happen for whatever reason, I mean,
there could be... We're asking a multitude of things to happen by various people in a
pretty tight timeline. It's not actually that detrimental for Sillington not to
have this go through this process until May. We're only looking at a couple of
months, aren't we? So it's not like something terrible is going to happen in
the meantime. It's just that they would like it to be like this rather than wait
for a... Because a lot of people might vote if they're going out to vote
already so it might be better. But anyway I fully understand and we can just blame
the government for this this rush. Thank you. Have you got any other
updates on that? You said you've got inspectors lined up etc.
Officer - 0:52:01
No just to mention that you know it's something CDC responsible for
the process and the costs of the examiner, well the rest of the process, the Sydney to
Neighbour Plan, so that includes paying for an examiner, but we're able to claim that
back from the government in the next financial year.
Well thank you, that was really very explanatory and I hope people have been listening and
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:52:36
you know, been appreciative of all that information.
So I'm very content with this.
I'm very content with going to your recommendation
for two and three on the agenda, which is our response.
That's fine.
That's going to go forward.
And the procurement, I think we've covered
all the details in that.
Just looking at them services to see if I need to have
exactly the right wording, which is a bit similar to having a neighbourhood plan having
the right wording.
Just sort of give you a little bit more of a reason.
A reason, because I think all the documentation is put together. We've got all our responses
lined up. We've worked with the parish council on that and our offices. I think everything
that should be there is there and is ready to go. Thank you. And I think we can
close the meeting now that we've finished everything. Thank you anybody
that's watching and we'll be meeting again for the next round of
neighbourhood plans and hopefully Sillington maybe in February. Thank you.