Hazelwood Parish  Neighbourhood Plan
Home what's on Parish Council community landscape gallery Neighbourhood Plan

Hazelwood Parish Neighbourhood Plan

Steering Group

Date; Wednesday February17th 2016

Venue; Memorial Hall, Hazelwood.

Present; Margaret Heath, Richard Heath, Kevin Eaton, (Chairman),

    Mike Wood, Michael Say, Glen Wall, Keith Walker.

Apologies; Robert Walker, Bob and Irene Wrigley, Judy Harris, Kay Reid, Lesley Wall.


The January 14th Minutes were read, agreed and signed by the Chairman.

Matters arising


Neighbourhood Plan Submission Version SubV3

Chairman confirmed that this document had been circulated to the Steering Group. The Health check report, that had instigated some alterations to the Plan document, had been distributed at an earlier date. Comments were sought from colleagues.

Richard and Margaret Heath had a number of issues. These were considered and discussed;

1/ They expressed serious concerns over what they saw as the over exposure of their farm’s name and relevant landscape pictures - no’s 2, 3 and 8. They felt that this unfairly put them at a disadvantage and wished to see these references replaced along with the corresponding arrows in the view corridors in Appendix D.


Colleagues were very surprised at these comments and could not understand why they felt as they did. The pictures of all the views had been taken to represent the best landscape aspects across the Parish. For that reason alone, these included three pictures featuring Hazelwood Hall Farm and surrounding land. Michael Say made the point that the whole pictorial section was key to the Plan’s central plank of demonstrating the Parish’s special quality of landscape and the need for this to be protected.

Mike Wood asked why these concerns had not been raised months ago. Richard Heath said that certainly during the consultation period, this was not possible because of him being a Parish councillor. This procedural point was not necessarily agreed but left to stand.

Michael Say made the point that the provision of all documentation to keep everyone informed had always included the Heaths, at the email address supplied. This was irrespective of attendance at meetings, just like all group members.

NB Later research shows that the assembling and inclusion of all the pictures was well underway as far back as mid-June 2015. It was certainly included in version V6aug10, circulated to all colleagues on August 10th, preceding the August 13th Steering Group meeting. Margaret and Richard Heath had not attended this meeting.

It was agreed that in order to move the document on and strictly as a matter of pragmatism,

*Pictures 2 and 3 will be replaced by alternatives.

*Picture 8 will be re-taken to exclude all Hazelwood Hall Farm buildings.

*The corresponding arrows on the view corridors diagram will also be removed, where appropriate, but retained for all the other views, to aid readers unfamiliar with the local geography.

*The Hazelwood Hall Farm captions will be removed.

Alternative shots were agreed and Lesley Wall will take these on Thursday Feb 18 in view of the good forecast. Glen Wall will provide Michael Say with a marked-up view corridors diagram.  

2/ They also felt that the Lubrizol name was too prominently featured, against the advice of the NPIERS Health check report. Michael Say agreed that this had been said but knew that references had been reduced appropriately. It was agreed that the document will be looked at again to see if further action is warranted.

3/ Policy NP8 item 2 reference The Knowle appeared, again, to be supportive of its role, in isolation. It was explained that despite the firm’s excellent stewardship of their estate, the wording had been included because of the firm’s singular, non-rural, industrial related activity, the size of its estate and the need, therefore, to ensure that any future expansion/development was sympathetic. The wording was therefore precautionary in its stated support. This was accepted.

4/ Policy NP3 item 2 reference larger dwellings and the 5 years residency in the Parish proviso was questioned, as it was not in the consultation. Michael Say referred the meeting to the NPIERS Health check section which explicitly recommended this wording. This was accepted.

Glen Wall

He said that the document was fine. His only comments concerned two pictures on P43 of walkers and horse riders not being recognisably in the Parish. The practicality of removing/changing them will be looked at.

Kevin Eaton

P28 Village Design Statement: Key Principals – should be Principles

P39 NP10 phrase ‘unless it’ is repeated.

Bob and Irene Wrigley

Happy with the Health check. Michael Say will just check that they did receive the SubV3.

Lesley Wall

‘…very proud of the document’. No amendments.

Judy Harris

Page 5 -4 (8) Should this read provide Hazelwood with specific design guidelines ?

Page 22 - 74  It is expected that the new Local Plan will continue....... This sentence feels unfinished

Page 26 - 84  Should this be only suitable not suitable only ?

Not discussed at the meeting but included for completion purposes

Natural England

Having read the draft submission available on the Parish Council website we fully supported the identification of a project to monitor the impact of new development on biodiversity as part of the Plan. However, we note that such a project is not listed in Appendix H as indicated on Page 34.

Keith Walker

We need to change Project 2 under Appendix F ..........Tree Audit as follows :

Delete " in order to maintain special Trees "..........

Insert " in qualifying circumstances "

"Special Trees" is not meaningful in terms of qualification for a TPO - it is amenity value which carries weight.


The 113 service operated by Glovers runs from Ashbourne Bus Station to Belper King St. & return.

Mondays to Fridays     5 times per day to Belper  /  6 to Ashbourne

Saturdays                    4 times pes day to Belper  /  5 to Ashbourne

Minor modification to this entry required.

Following all discussion and the actions noted, the document was agreed and will be progressed asap. Michael Say confirmed that those who had offered apologies had been asked to comment/hopefully give approval in arrears as soon as convenient.

What next?

Chairman advised that the goal was still to have a May referendum. Even given the time required to process the modifications, the necessary inspection and the 6 weeks final publicity period by AVBC, it was still a possibility.

The statutory documents for AVBC were confirmed as;

*The Neighbourhood Plan – modifications to be actioned by Michael Say in conjunction with Helen Metcalfe and probably, Martin Angold.

*Consultation Summary – for action by Helen Metcalfe.

*Basic Condition Statement – for action by Helen Metcalfe.

Apropos the above, a cover design is to be produced which links the above documents. Michal Say to action.

Publicity to keep residents in the loop was organised to include a FP ad in the March church mag plus emails to the supporters list. A sample of the ad was shown indicating the above intentions. The challenge will be to keep residents informed when there is not much to say!

Pre-referendum publicity tactics will be governed by what is permissible. A door-to-door newsletter is certainly intended, at minimum.

Other documents

The VDS and the Sustainability Grid, both instigated by Mike Wood, need checking and some modification. Michael Say to liaise. Even though these are not statutorily required by AVBC, they will need to be on the Parish web site for reference by the time the key documents are submitted to AVBC.

Any other business


Keith Walker confirmed that the Awards for All total to date was £6,665, including accruals. Although more would be spent, a credit balance would likely ensue.

The Locality spend was £6,700 - £300 overspent. This was manageable.

Further expenditure would involve modest design costs for document covers and a likely pre-referendum newsletter for door-to-door distribution.

Village Fete

Judy Harris raised the question of taking a stand. Before or after the referendum, it was agreed that there were good reasons for doing this, whether for the Parish Council or the Steering Group. It was agreed that this should happen. It does beg the question as to display material

Martin Angold re; Parish web site

Michael Say reported an email from Martin offering to update the Neighbourhood Plan section. It was agreed that this should happen when all documents are ready i.e. Neighbourhood Plan, Consultation Summary, NPIERS Health check? Basic Condition Statement. Michael Say to respond to Martin.

Keith Walker explained that he was progressively dealing with the Parish web site; Martin was helping with the Neighbourhood Plan element.

Date of next meeting

Thursday March 10th was agreed at St John’s Church. This will be cancelled if events show that it would not be worthwhile.