Category Archives: Knaphill Community

Police: Burglary prevention

 

surreypoliceI am saddened to inform you that the borough has suffered from a spate of overnight burglaries recently. These have occurred without any forced entry because thieves know how to compromise your insecure multipoint locking doors.

 

When the door is closed and you lift up the handle the hook bolts are thrown into their keeps in the doorframe. By turning the key in the cylinder, whether from the inside or the outside, you are locking those hook bolts, and the latch bolt, into position. If you don’t key lock the bolts in place they can be disengaged by simply pressing down the outside or inside handles. Just because your door may not be opened from the outside without a key please don’t think that you don’t need to lock the bolts into position. Offenders can, and do, gain access to internal handles by placing tools through the letter plate of the door. This means they are able to disengage the hook bolts, release the latch and open your door.

 

Follow these 6 simple steps to ensure that your multipoint locking door is secure –

Step 1 – Close the door

Step 2 – Lift the internal handle up to engage the bolts

Step 3 – Turn the key to lock the bolts into position

Step 4 – Remove the key

Step 5 – Walk away

Step 6 – Place the keys out of reach and out of sight. Keys should however be accessible to the occupants of the property in case of fire and emergency exit.

These simple steps can and do prevent burglaries!

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Mark Saunders

Crime Prevention Design Advisor


If you need to contact us in the meantime, you can reach us on

Email: 13207@surrey.pnn.police.uk
Tel: 101

I am saddened to inform you that the borough has suffered from a spate of overnight burglaries recently. These have occurred without any forced entry because thieves know how to compromise your insecure multipoint locking doors.

When the door is closed and you lift up the handle the hook bolts are thrown into their keeps in the doorframe. By turning the key in the cylinder, whether from the inside or the outside, you are locking those hook bolts, and the latch bolt, into position. If you don’t key lock the bolts in place they can be disengaged by simply pressing down the outside or inside handles. Just because your door may not be opened from the outside without a key please don’t think that you don’t need to lock the bolts into position. Offenders can, and do, gain access to internal handles by placing tools through the letter plate of the door. This means they are able to disengage the hook bolts, release the latch and open your door.

Follow these 6 simple steps to ensure that your multipoint locking door is secure –

Step 1 – Close the door

Step 2 – Lift the internal handle up to engage the bolts

Step 3 – Turn the key to lock the bolts into position

Step 4 – Remove the key

Step 5 – Walk away

Step 6 – Place the keys out of reach and out of sight. Keys should however be accessible to the occupants of the property in case of fire and emergency exit.

These simple steps can and do prevent burglaries!

Yours Sincerely

Mark Saunders

Crime Prevention Design Advisor


If you need to contact us in the meantime, you can reach us on

Email: 13207@surrey.pnn.police.uk
Tel: 101

Almond Villas update

In case anyone had missed the vast amount of work undertaken recently on the old Almond Villas site (Broadway) it was ground clearance. This was presumably undertaken while preliminary discussions were had with WBC planning for the construction of 10 dwellings with landscaping.

There is a planning notice outside the site although you may have missed it as it is barely attached and on plain white paper rather than the old bright orange.

Anyway, the current plan is PLAN/2013/0117 ‘Submission of reserved matters considering layout, appearance, scale and landscaping following outline consent under PLAN/2011/0088 for the erection of up to 10 dwellings and associated access’; the other plan referred to has outline planning permission granted on appeal in 2011. Interestingly (for some!) the appeal documentation (ref: APP/A3655//A/11/2157340) has pages missing from it so there are points or conditions unable to be viewed.

Main access to the site will be via Broadway and a secondary access opposite the Vyne entrance. Although it will be a very cramped site with terraced housing (mainly) not in keeping with the rest of the road, it is still likely WBC will approve the plans. This gives serious concern to where all the residents will be parking with a likely result of Broadway itself.

With construction of 15 High St well underway, plans for the old library site underway and now this, it looks like a busy construction period for Knaphill! Let’s not start to think about Brookwood Farm…

 

You can search the plans for yourself on the WBC site – http://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/publicaccess (You will have to use internet explorer to open any plans as the system is incompatible with any other web browser)

 

Our letter to WBC is here

New Barley Mow Woods concerns

Small update 25/4/13:

Dialogue is underway regarding the possibility of two dwellings on the site. I emphasize possibility as there is a blanket TPO on the site, it’s within the greenbelt and is woodland area all of which make planning permission very difficult. Let’s hope WBC do the right thing.

—————————————-

Late last year we reported on the intended sale of part of the woods that were not owned by the Woodlands Trust. The land was scheduled to be auctioned but a sale was agreed outside the auction room.

The land in question is at the corner of land at the junction of Barley Mow Lane and Chobham Road, close to two listed buildings. Although the whole of the woods are covered by a tree protection order one is worried that this may not be sufficient to prevent a determined developer to try and build on the land. It would be more helpful if the County made the woods part of a conservation area.

Unconfirmed reports are being received that the new owner is examining their options on the use of this land. The KRA will monitor developments but we need the assistance of residents who either live in that part of the village or walk through the woods. Keep your eyes and ears open, if you hear or see anything give us a call.

 

New round of community funding available

Last year we highlighted a new community fund for projects £10, 000 – £50, 000 to improve local areas.

Ruth Brown of SCC has been in contact to advise of a new round of awards –

I am writing to let you know that a new round of Surrey County Council’s fund for community improvements has been announced.  Bids to this fund can be submitted for requests between £10,000 up to a maximum of £50,000 for projects which can demonstrate that they will make a real difference to the lives of the local community.  The funding is intended primarily to cover capital costs linked to community infrastructure projects.   A total of £1 million has been made available for this financial year, 2013-14.  

Proposals for funding for local projects will need to be submitted via your local Surrey County Councillor (please contact after the elections on 3 May 2013) and the community partnerships team (please contact myself or Sarah Goodman on localpartnerships.woking@surreycc.gov.uk).   The deadline for the first round of bids is midday on 28 June 2013. The Leader will then consider the Panel’s recommendations on 11 September 2013. Any applications received after the 28 June will be referred to the second round of bids which close midday on the 24 October 2013, with the Leader making a decision on successful bids on 4 December 2013. Further information is available via the following link http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/voluntary-community-and-faith-sector-vcfs/community-improvements-fund-leaders-initiative

Yours sincerely, Ruth Brown
Community Partnerships and Committee Officer (Woking)
Tel: 01483 518095
Email: ruth.brown@surreycc.gov.uk

Should anyone have an idea to develop the area for community benefit then please get in touch!

Village meeting question responses – Cllr Richard Sharp

Barley Mow Woods

a. What would the council permit to be developed here? Nothing or anything?

b. Would a developer who infringes planning, be forced to return the wood to it’s original condition or just fined?

c. Just what does protected status for the trees really mean?

It is not for the council to say what would be permitted on a site that is not targeted for development and includes a TPO, it would be for a developer to put a proposal forward. Any such proposal would have to argue very special circumstances to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. I cannot conceive of an application that would be able to do this, but should an application be made then the authority must consider if a relevant case is made. The answers to parts b and c are given on the council website here http://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/trees/treenfpol

 

Deep concern over the quality of recent planning decisions (especially Highways) – just who is it working for? Once a planning consent is given can it ever bee retracted (if for example the information upon which the decision was made was so fundamentally flawed)?

This is a question for an expert in planning law – Cllr Bowes may be able to help here or perhaps the Borough Solicitor. With changes such as the introduction of  the NPPF the legal framework for planning decisions has changed significantly.

 

Lack of provision for special needs support within the schools – perceived deep reluctance for school to go down the road of “statementing” a child.

This is a question for the County Council.

 

3. Addition safe crossing places for children coming back from Winston at Hermitage Road roundabout – a proper pedestrian crossing?

This was the subject of a petition to the Woking Local Committee in March 2013. I believe it will be considered again in September 2013.

 

4. Miscellaneous

a. Air quality

This was debated at the Woking Executive on 7/2/13 and details are available through the council website. Please advise of any specific questions.

 

b. Knaphill Football Club

i. Woking FC – whose is it? After huge effort was put in by Knaphill to get the site up to it’s current high standard, who is it now for?

ii. What does “sweat the assets” mean with regards to KFC?

KRA will be aware that this is a council sports facility and that it is shared between various organisations. Councilllors have been supportive of KFC and have suggested that its contribution to the facilities is recognised. The council must seek to maximise its level of non-grant income to maintain its services and thus the proposal to gain additional income from other users.

Village Meeting report

On Thursday 7th March just over 40 residents attended a Village Meeting held at Knaphill School. The meeting was chaired by Rev Richard Sherlock of Knaphill Baptist Church.

The panel

County Councillor Diana Smith,

Woking Councillors Saj Hussain, Tina Liddington, Richard Sharp, Melanie Whithand

Geoff McManus – Head of Neighbourhood Services, Woking Borough Council

Sergeant Chris Lee – Surrey Police Services

Kate Palmer – Chair of Knaphill Lower and Knaphill Schools PTA.

Part way through the meeting Jonathan Lord MP and Councillor John Kingsbury joined the gathering.

 

The first group of questions were about anti-social behaviour especially in and around High Street, Knaphill. Sergeant Lee reported that since September 2012 there has been a decrease in the number of reported incident. The police have been proactive in trying to resolve the issues and were currently working with 20 young people and their families however in one case the courts has issued an ASBO order and there is a second ASBO case working through the system. The police have increased their patrols and are working with Woking Borough Council with the intention to introduce a Section 30 dispersal order. In response to a question Sergeant Lee explained that a Section 30 order would give the police powers to disperse any group of 6 individuals or more. Sergeant Lee concluded by adding that local shop keepers were also involved in drawing up a Section 30 Dispersal Order.

Sergeant Lee stated that they required the help of local residents and residents should report all incidents to Surrey Police via telephone number 101.

A resident from Victoria Road asked a question about Neighbourhood Watch schemes. Residents in Victoria Road want to establish a scheme but have been given to understand you need a minimum of 50% of residents to support the scheme and currently those trying to organize the scheme had failed to achieve that minimum support. Sergeant Lee confirmed that there was a requirement to get a minimum of 50% support from residents living in the area to be covered by the scheme. He added that he could not comment on the specific request from the residents of Victoria Road but took the question away to investigate.

Returning to anti-social behaviour there were a number of specific questions

Q. From their investigations have the police found that those causing problems are under the influence of alcohol or drugs?

A. Police confirmed that, in some cases, alcohol is involved and under the Section 30 procedure the Police would be looking at the various sources of alcohol sales in the immediate area.

 

Q. The word dispersal, what does it mean?

A. In the case of children under the age of 16 the police may take them back to their homes. In general terms it does not mean just clear the High Street, dispersal means to break up a group and make sure the group does not reform in another part of Knaphill.

 

Q. The individuals that the Police have spoken with, are the majority local or are they from other parts of the County?

A. The majority are from Knaphill but there have been individuals from Goldsworth Park, St. Johns and Old Woking.

 

Sergeant Lee told the meeting that to give young people more things to do in the village the group that run The Cabin on a Monday night are hoping to be able to open the centre for a second night, a Thursday. To open a second night the organisers need more volunteers. Geoff McManus added that WBC were supporting the plans for the Cabin and supported Sergeant Lee’s call for more volunteers.

Cllr. Sharp asked about speeding and drag racing in both The Broadway and Redding Way. In reply Sergeant Lee stated that speeding and drag racing are forms of anti-social behaviour. Figures gathered by the police do not match the antidote reports. If the problem is as bad as some people believe then those individuals should report incidents as soon as possible during or after the event. The police can impound a vehicle under Section 59.

 

CCTV, does it work in Knaphill?

Sergeant Lee stated that CCTV both those operated by WBC and those operated by private people or businesses are an advantage adding that CCTV had been used to identified at least one local offender. Geoff McManus added that information from CCTV’s was generally used after an event. Geoff McManus added that WBC owns a mobile CCTV unit which they use in connection with the police.

 

Dog poo, an on-going problem in Knaphill

Geoff McManus stated that this had been highlighted as a problem last year and WBC had run a high profile campaign. This campaign included visits to schools to explain the problem and inform pet owners that they should clear up after the dog had done its business.

A resident stated that the problem is that dog walkers are out either early morning or late at night and residents only see the mess. Geoff McManus agreed it can be difficult to actually witness the dog doing its business and watch the owner walk away without cleaning it up. Where there has been evidence then the Council will prosecute.

 

Inconsiderate parking

Geoff McManus pointed out that the Council had recently taken over responsibility for controlling on-street parking and enforcing any parking restrictions. He pointed out that it was illegal to park on double yellow lines at any time. He stated that the Council had stepped up the enforcement of the regulations.

A resident pointed out that when a traffic control officer recently visited Knaphill and parked on the pavement in Queens Road the car totally blocking the pavement.

Geoff McManus added that there is an annual review by Surrey County Council of parking restrictions and that the Council will be gathering data for the County over the next few weeks.

Turning specifically to parking in and around schools, Geoff McManus stated that an added problem is that on the majority of occasions where someone has illegally parked the driver remains with the car and when a Traffic Officer approaches the vehicle they drive off.

Councillor Whitehand pointed out that she had requested some traffic cones so that these could be placed outside the entrance to the school in Chobham Road to stop illegal parking.

A resident highlighted a problem in Highclare Road, close to the Crown Public House. Motorists park on the pavement that is quite narrow, whilst they visit the take-away or other businesses in the immediate area.

Another resident pointed out that the car parks in Redding Way are heavily used by staff from Alpha Hospital and therefore it is frequently impossible for parents going to Knaphill School to legally park and then walk.

Councillor Hussain agreed that there was also a problem with local car parks being used by commuters.

A resident pointed out that in recent planning applications the developer had planned for a minimum of parking bays stating that the majority of staff or visitors will walk, cycle or use public transport, a joke.

 

Highways

Councillor Whitehand outlined how the Councillors on the Surrey County Council Local Committee had instructed SCC to carry out an in-depth study of the congestion on the Bagshot Road and adjoining roads. She felt that this was essential given that the development on Brookwood Farm had been given the go-ahead.

Councillor Smith stated that Surrey County Council could not keep expanding the road network, Cllr. Smith added that the County cannot build to accommodate an ever increasing number of cars. Councillor Smith concluded that there has to be greater use of sustainable transport and this includes residents walking or cycling for short journeys.

 

Litter

A resident reported on an increase in the amount of litter and fly tipping in the area. This as especially an issue around the Vyne and along the canal towpath. Geoff McManus stated that where there has been fly-tipping they do sift through the material to see if there is any identification of the origin of the rubbish. Sergeant Lee reported that there had been a problem with fly-tipping on Horsell Common and the police assisted in trying to identify the culprit.

A resident asked if SERCO were required to collect litter before they cut the grass in and around the village.

Geoff McManus stated that SERCO staff should collect any litter before starting to cut the grass. He added that on occasions the staff may not see the litter prior to cutting the grass and so it may be spread across the land.

A resident asked if there had been any increase in burglaries, especially from sheds.

Sergeant Lee reported that there had been an increase in thefts from sheds or other large objects left outside premises like cycles. He added that it was important that residents made sure that articles were not left in site of the pavement and that sheds were securely locked.

 

Planning

A resident asked how Brookwood Farm development was so easily accepted.

Councillor Hussain stated that he had argued against the plans but they were accepted by the Planning Committee. He pointed out that the majority of the money received by WBC from the sale of Brookwood farm would go to pay for the flood defences and other developments in the Hoe Valley.

 

Take Aways

A resident stated that the Council had permitted too many shops being converted into take-aways, Knaphill had become known as the ‘Take-away capital of Surrey’. Does WBC encourage a more rounded choice of goods available in local shops?

Councillor Sharp stated that the Council were currently developing supplementary planning rules that could limit the number of a particular type of business in a particular area like Knaphill.

 

Old Library site

A resident asked if there was any news on the use of this site?

Councillor Hussain stated that work was going ahead with the planning of a unit of apartments for use by older residents. He added that the Council were hoping to be able to gain access to the proposed new building from the rear, close the rear of the Co-op. Once access has been agreed then plans for the Remembrance Garden to be included in the project can go ahead. Councillor Hussain hoped that the Armistice Day service in 2014 can be held in the new Remembrance Garden.

 

Schools

In answer to a question of local schools Councillor Smith stated that there was great demand for school places in and around Woking and that the County was taking action to try and keep up with demand. There was an issue with standards and recently the Secretary of State had said that Surrey schools were coasting. Councillor Smith added that parents were looking for quality from the local schools and although a small number were in what is called special measures, all schools are heading in the right direct.

 

A resident asked about children having to cross the road where Hermitage Road meets Lower Guildford Road, she asked if a formal crossing could be fitted. Councillor Smith, in reply, stated that there had been two recent changes to the highways in that location, first the speed limit had been reduced to 30 miles per hour and the road at the roundabout had been narrowed to improve the junction for pedestrians crossing. Councillor Smith suggested that the new arrangements should be given time to settle down to see if it improves the situation for pedestrians. In reply a resident suggested that there was a requirement for signs making drivers aware of the fact that the speed limit had been changed.

 

At the end of the meeting Mr Lord MP stated that he had found the meeting interested. He congratulated the KRA for getting involved in planning issues. He was a strong believer in planning decisions being taken at a local level. Mr Lord informed the meeting that he had been informed that 600 troops would be relocated to Pirbright as part of the Government’s review of European troop bases.

 

In closing the meeting Rev Sherlock stated that there remained a number of outstanding questions and that these would be placed on the KRA web site. He thanked the members of the panel for answering the questions and residents for their attendance. Councillor Hussain thanked Rev. Sherlock for chairing the meeting.

Councillors express their disappointment with recent planning decisions

At a recent Council meeting both Councillor Kevin Davis from Brookwood and our own Councillor Melanie Whitehand stated that they had lost confidence in Surrey County Highways handling of recent planning applications.

The above comments were made during a debate that followed a presentation by Surrey County Highways and Head of Planning for WBC on planning and transport infrastructure. During the presentation M. Green of SCC stated that where a new development would make an impact on the current road network the policy was that any proposed transport improvements should be cost effective. Mr Green went on to say that the County had a congestion strategy and took a proactive approach to infrastructure planning and what they were seeking to provide was journey time reliability. To me this means that if your journey to work say 3 years ago took 30 minutes but the same journey now takes 45 minutes as long as the County can show that 45 minutes is a reliable estimate of your journey time the County have met their objective.

The County plan for a population increase of 9% over 20 years. The last census showed that the population in this area grew by 10% over 10 years!!!

To show how the two authorities work together the speakers illustrated their presentation with two examples one of which was Brookwood Farm.

In going through the decision making process for Brookwood Farm SCC admitted, for the first time in a public, that the development will have a significant impact on congestion in the area of the A322. The authority also confirmed that the road network within the Brookwood Farm estate will comprise of private roads and therefore issues like parking are not a responsibility of either authority, or is the upkeep of the road surfaces. The County Authority appeared to be more interested in the creation of a pedestrian/cyclist road across the farmland from the rear of the new school to the canal towpath rather than solving the problems that will come from the increased congestion on the A322.

In the question and answer session the authorities were asked why the study of the Brookwood Crossroads corridor, now being considered, was not carried out before the planning application was submitted to the Planning Committee. No answer was forthcoming.

It was pointed out to the Highways Authority that the transport assessment and the Planning Officers report totally ignored the impact the development would have on those residents who use Oaktree Road. Again, no answer was forthcoming.

Mr Devine of SCC agreed with Councillor Saj Hussain that the residents living in Sparvell Road will not see any improvements to their living standards once their road is connected to the proposed housing estate. In fact the additional traffic will have a negative impact on residents living standards. Mr Devine’s reasoning for joining Sparvell Road to the proposed estate was that it would improve the traffic flow for all motorists using the A322. So residents in Sparvell Road have to take a hit for the betterment of others.

Councillor Melanie Whitehand related the opening statements from both SCC and WBC to their handling of the development at 15 High Street, Clifton’s. Councillor Whitehand argued that Surrey County Highways had failed to follow their own methodology in the handling of this application especially in the timing of a site visit. In answer to a separate question the County Authority stated that they do carry out safety audits on changes to the road network and that these safety audits are in three parts. It will be interesting to see if a safety audit was carried ut on the Clifton’s site.

Total back on the case

You will recall that recently Total garage in the village centre withdrew an application for a 24hr alcohol licence after discovering they weren’t actually allowed to be open for 24 hrs a day… Well they also said they were looking at other avenues and it appears they have found one.total

They have submitted an application to vary condition 6 of the existing permissions to allow the garage to open 6am to midnight. The new planning application is number PLAN/2013/0202 but at this point in time there are no additional details on the WBC website.

Frankly, with so much disturbance in the village being attributed to alcohol-fuelled activity, it would be a disappointment to see this granted. In a village of this size do we really need so many outlets for alcohol sales outside of the 5 public houses we already have?

A better move from the council would be to refuse this application and restrict alcohol sales from ALL  retail outlets within the village to 11am – 10pm. I wonder if it will happen?

Our letter to WBC is here

Sainsbury’s extension update

Sainsburys

A number of residents have commented about the trees and the netting. Let me quote from the plans for the landscaping of the grounds that is part of the expansion plans.

‘A high quality soft landscape scheme has been proposed to emphasis the entrance to the development, and the customer car park areas…………. Throughout the car parking areas within the site semi mature trees are proposed to provide initial height and interest. Tree species selection includes Acer, Betula and Quercus which are suitable to these positions.

Although some existing trees will be lost to allow the re-development of the site total of 56 replacement trees have been included in the new scheme particularly to the areas surrounding the proposed building and car park areas, to aid with the filtration of views of the store from surrounding properties’

Putting the trees on one side not everything has been agreed with regards to the extension. Sainsbury’s plans to fully enclose the service yard go before the Planning Committee on Tuesday and we will report on the result of that meeting later in the week.

 

Planning Committee defer plans submitted by Sainsbury’s to meet planning conditions that formed part of the planning decision that permits Sainsbury’s to build their extension.

In December 2011 Woking BC Planning Committee agreed to the plans to extend the Sainsbury’s store in Redding Way. As part of the permission to develop the Planning Committee imposed a number of planning conditions. One of those conditions was that Sainsbury’s had to submit, to the full Planning Committee, details of how they planned to fully enclose the service yard. The requirement to come back to the Planning Committee with a planning condition is unusual in that planning conditions compliance is usually left to Head of Planning under delegated powers.

The report on how the developer planned to meet the planning conditions was presented to the Planning Committee on 19 March 2013 and after a full debate a majority of Councillor’s voted to defer a decision on the above condition. Cllr Richard Sharp, supported by Cllr Melanie Whitehand and Cllr Saj Hussain put forward the argument that a number of papers referred to in the Planning Officers report had not been freely available on the WBC web site and therefore Councillors and acoustic experts had been unable to fully digest and question some of the facts and figures submitted by the developer. In the limited time available to study the papers it was felt that there was conflicting information and the Ward Councillors sought more time for these issues to be resolved.

The issues are around noise and air pollution. There has been an on-going battle between residents who live in close proximity to the service yard and Sainsbury’s. A breach of condition notice is in placein connection to the level of noise monitored close to local houses. In the decision notice issued by WBC in August 2012 it states that the Local Planning Authority will not pursue further action within the next 9 months as it was felt that by enclosing the service yard this would overcome any future breaches of the restrictive noise conditions. What local residents and Ward Councillors are seeking is that once the service yard is enclosed then local residents will have no grounds to complain of excessive noise from the service yard.

Should Knaphill develop a Neighbourhood Plan?

Residents in Knaphill are feeling pretty abused when it comes to planning decisions. We’ve all felt Woking Borough Council’s approach is skewed at times, never seeming to reflect popular opinion or taking cognisance of what the locals are saying. So is it time to gain a larger influence over our village development by creating a Neighbourhood Plan?

What is a Neighbourhood Plan?

It’s a method of a local area to have more control over the ‘what and how’ is developed. It must be established and developed by a local town or parish council or a neighbourhood forum and must not contravene certain regulations or the Local Plan / strategy already created [by in this case Woking Borough Council]. For example, the community can have more of a say in choosing where you want new homes, shops and offices to be built; have your say on what new buildings should look like and help grant planning permission for the new buildings you want to see go ahead.

Who’s doing it?

Locally, Chobham (Surrey Heath) have submitted plans for their own Neighbourhood Plan and if you do a simple online search for ‘Neighbourhood Plan‘ then you get a whole raft of plans in various stages of development. This shows that communities throughout the country are taking this opportunity very seriously and having their say in the control of the area they live in.

Is it supported by regulations?

Absolutely. It was given the rubber stamp in the 2011 Localism Act and now has its own regulations – The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 – so this is a serious commitment from the government to give power to the community, something local councils are fairly bad at doing.

I want more information

Well there’s a raft of it out there! This is supported by government and local councils so expect a few hoops to jump through. These are a bureaucratic necessity and add to what is not the easy option for any community group considering the idea of a Neighbourhood Plan. I’ve provided some links below that I think are useful. There’s a couple of guides for both ward councillors and general information; I’ve also included WBC’s own page on neighbourhood planning as well as an independent information site complete with a forum area to discuss the issues at hand.

Make no mistake this would be a tough road ahead but the rewards can be great – imagine not having to go through the pains of Brookwood Farm again where all opinion is washed aside, of having plans submitted where you can actually have an proper say in the process!

Links

How is it funded?

The local community will have to pay for the preparation of their neighbourhood plan. However, the Government has awarded funding to four organisations with expertise in planning, to assist communities in developing Neighbourhood Plans. These organisations are:
The Prince’s Foundation – assistance with community engagement and finding local solutions to issues. www.princes-foundation.org
Locality – provision of support and networking to community groups through online resources and other networking tools, practical workshops and seminars, and tailored advice through a telephone advice line. www.locality.org.uk
The Royal Town Planning Institute – via the Planning Aid service, the provision of free, independent, impartial, professional planning advice to people who do not have the means to pay professional fees. Provision of support and training to local communities to influence and contribute to planning strategy, policy and decision-making at all levels.
www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid
The National Association of Local Councils in partnership with the Campaign to Protect Rural England – provision of basic information about the planning system via a website, phone line and publications. Establishing a programme of local events to inform the public and parish councils about how to influence local plans.
www.cpre.org.uk

Big question time – Who would do it for Knaphill?

Well there’s the rub. This will take a group of like minded people to come together and represent the interests of the whole village diligently and with constant engagement and communication and don;t forget there would have to be a referendum for Knaphill to adopt this approach.

Personally I do not see the Knaphill Residents Association (KRA) as being the body to accomplish the job although there should certainly be representation made. So who else would like to do the job?

Here’s the question for you – are you interested?