26 Jul 2006 - PARISH COUNCIL
SHENINGTON WITH ALKERTON PARISH COUNCIL
An extraordinary meeting of the Shenington with Alkerton Parish Council was held in the Village Hall on Wednesday, July 19th 2006.
Present were: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman), Mr K. Adams, Mrs M. Coles, Ms G. Crabb, Mr T. Dowdeswell, Mr. S. Mitchell and Mrs J. Walters. 13 members of the public were present.
An apology was received from the Clerk, Mr C. Gibson and in his absence the minutes were taken by Dr. C. Anson.
1. Chairman's remarks.
The Chairman explained that
· this meeting was due to the lateness of finishing the previous meeting of the Parish Council;
· the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a matter relating to planning, and
· it was not a public meeting but an open forum would be held both at the start and also at the end of the meeting.
2 Declaration of interest
Mrs Coles declared an interest in part of the land under discussion.
3. Planning Matters
Ms Crabb, as the councillor with the planning portfolio, explained that there were two matters arising requiring a response to Cherwell District Council.
The first was to agree a record of the existing facilities in the parish "Review of Village Categorisation/Hierarchy". It was noted that "The New Inn" was in the parish in addition to "The Bell", as well as other facilities including the school, the nursery and the surgery but no retail food outlet.
The Chairman and Ms Crabb will ensure that the details are correct and return the document to Cherwell District Council by August 4.
The second was to review the information contained in the "Cherwell Local Development Framework: Banbury and North Cherwell Site Allocation Development Plan".
The Plan currently shows two sites potentially suitable for housing development:
· A site at Quarry Farm, currently owned by Mr R. Tew and
· A site on land adjoining Top Farm, currently owned by the Coles Family Trust.
Mrs Coles withdrew from the meeting before discussion of the plan in view of her interest in one of the sites.
The Chairman recalled that at a previous meeting held in the church it was clear that the sentiment of the village was against a proposed development of some 29 dwellings near Top Farm. He mentioned that the poor roads and the lack of pavements were said to be the limiting factor in village expansion. However, he felt that the planning attitude to traffic movement could well change. He noted that over the past 26 years there had been an increase of some 22 dwellings with a further 5 permitted.
He summarised the Council's need to decide what is best for the village.
· Do we want to get affordable housing, perhaps the provision of a sports field or a village hall on the back of a housing development?
· Further, are the sites suitable for housing development?
· Should development continue at the present rate?
· If so, where?
He considered that the Parish Council could attach a caveat to its answers to Cherwell District Council and they could then be revised in the light of subsequent evolution of the new Development Framework. Both Mr Adams and Ms Crabb opposed the idea of caveats and wished to make an outright decision.
Mr Adams said that he did not want the sites included in the framework plan since having them there would be "the thin end of the wedge", leaving an open door for developers.
Mr Dowdeswell felt that there has to be some growth for the village to survive and that we should have some of the development that Cherwell has to provide and get the possible benefits - we should look for planning gains along with sympathetic treatment.
Ms Crabb reminded the Council that another route towards low cost housing is available through the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council which has the power to purchase suitable land, compulsorily if necessary. Ms Crabb further remarked that house-owners were expanding their properties and that houses with a smaller number of bedrooms are needed for the elderly and for young families.
The plan for Banbury and N. Cherwell envisages building a total of 223 houses in the villages of N. Cherwell during the period 2004-2016 and 559 by 2026.
The Chairman observed that there are 74 parishes in the Cherwell D.C. area but he is not yet sure how many are in N. Cherwell.
Mr Adams reiterated his view that some development should be allowed but not on the land in the development framework.
At Mr Mitchell's suggestion it was agreed to invite Ms Astrid Blackburn, who has the responsibility for coordinating the development framework, to an open meeting in the village for further clarification. The Chairman will arrange this.
4. Open forum
The following points were made:
· The last proposed development on the site adjoining Top Farm was comprehensively discussed and turned down.
· It was reported that the Highways department assessed that the Top Farm development would produce some 300 traffic movements per day.
· It is possible for anyone to register a site up to the closing date of August 25 but the Parish Council have a right to comment on any changes.
· Drainage is a problem already and further work would be needed to handle any additional development.
· Access from the Quarry Farm site onto Rattlecombe Road is highly dangerous and would be unsatisfactory for any development.
· In two instances single house developments have been rejected by the Planning Department. The framework plan refers to developments of 5 or more houses, with the possibility of affordable dwellings,
· It was reported that Mr Buxton of Cherwell D.C. wrote a report to the Parish Council following the church public meeting listing objections to the Top Farm development. Ms Crabb will circulate a copy to all members of the Parish Council
The Chairman thanked Dr. Anson for taking the minutes of the meeting.
The meeting closed at 9.55 pm.
An extraordinary meeting of the Shenington with Alkerton Parish Council was held in the Village Hall on Wednesday, July 19th 2006.
Present were: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman), Mr K. Adams, Mrs M. Coles, Ms G. Crabb, Mr T. Dowdeswell, Mr. S. Mitchell and Mrs J. Walters. 13 members of the public were present.
An apology was received from the Clerk, Mr C. Gibson and in his absence the minutes were taken by Dr. C. Anson.
1. Chairman's remarks.
The Chairman explained that
· this meeting was due to the lateness of finishing the previous meeting of the Parish Council;
· the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a matter relating to planning, and
· it was not a public meeting but an open forum would be held both at the start and also at the end of the meeting.
2 Declaration of interest
Mrs Coles declared an interest in part of the land under discussion.
3. Planning Matters
Ms Crabb, as the councillor with the planning portfolio, explained that there were two matters arising requiring a response to Cherwell District Council.
The first was to agree a record of the existing facilities in the parish "Review of Village Categorisation/Hierarchy". It was noted that "The New Inn" was in the parish in addition to "The Bell", as well as other facilities including the school, the nursery and the surgery but no retail food outlet.
The Chairman and Ms Crabb will ensure that the details are correct and return the document to Cherwell District Council by August 4.
The second was to review the information contained in the "Cherwell Local Development Framework: Banbury and North Cherwell Site Allocation Development Plan".
The Plan currently shows two sites potentially suitable for housing development:
· A site at Quarry Farm, currently owned by Mr R. Tew and
· A site on land adjoining Top Farm, currently owned by the Coles Family Trust.
Mrs Coles withdrew from the meeting before discussion of the plan in view of her interest in one of the sites.
The Chairman recalled that at a previous meeting held in the church it was clear that the sentiment of the village was against a proposed development of some 29 dwellings near Top Farm. He mentioned that the poor roads and the lack of pavements were said to be the limiting factor in village expansion. However, he felt that the planning attitude to traffic movement could well change. He noted that over the past 26 years there had been an increase of some 22 dwellings with a further 5 permitted.
He summarised the Council's need to decide what is best for the village.
· Do we want to get affordable housing, perhaps the provision of a sports field or a village hall on the back of a housing development?
· Further, are the sites suitable for housing development?
· Should development continue at the present rate?
· If so, where?
He considered that the Parish Council could attach a caveat to its answers to Cherwell District Council and they could then be revised in the light of subsequent evolution of the new Development Framework. Both Mr Adams and Ms Crabb opposed the idea of caveats and wished to make an outright decision.
Mr Adams said that he did not want the sites included in the framework plan since having them there would be "the thin end of the wedge", leaving an open door for developers.
Mr Dowdeswell felt that there has to be some growth for the village to survive and that we should have some of the development that Cherwell has to provide and get the possible benefits - we should look for planning gains along with sympathetic treatment.
Ms Crabb reminded the Council that another route towards low cost housing is available through the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council which has the power to purchase suitable land, compulsorily if necessary. Ms Crabb further remarked that house-owners were expanding their properties and that houses with a smaller number of bedrooms are needed for the elderly and for young families.
The plan for Banbury and N. Cherwell envisages building a total of 223 houses in the villages of N. Cherwell during the period 2004-2016 and 559 by 2026.
The Chairman observed that there are 74 parishes in the Cherwell D.C. area but he is not yet sure how many are in N. Cherwell.
Mr Adams reiterated his view that some development should be allowed but not on the land in the development framework.
At Mr Mitchell's suggestion it was agreed to invite Ms Astrid Blackburn, who has the responsibility for coordinating the development framework, to an open meeting in the village for further clarification. The Chairman will arrange this.
4. Open forum
The following points were made:
· The last proposed development on the site adjoining Top Farm was comprehensively discussed and turned down.
· It was reported that the Highways department assessed that the Top Farm development would produce some 300 traffic movements per day.
· It is possible for anyone to register a site up to the closing date of August 25 but the Parish Council have a right to comment on any changes.
· Drainage is a problem already and further work would be needed to handle any additional development.
· Access from the Quarry Farm site onto Rattlecombe Road is highly dangerous and would be unsatisfactory for any development.
· In two instances single house developments have been rejected by the Planning Department. The framework plan refers to developments of 5 or more houses, with the possibility of affordable dwellings,
· It was reported that Mr Buxton of Cherwell D.C. wrote a report to the Parish Council following the church public meeting listing objections to the Top Farm development. Ms Crabb will circulate a copy to all members of the Parish Council
The Chairman thanked Dr. Anson for taking the minutes of the meeting.
The meeting closed at 9.55 pm.