20 Aug 2006 - PARISH COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 14
DRAFT MINUTES: SHENINGTON WITH ALKERTON PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council met in the Village Hall on Monday 14th August 2006.
Present: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman), Mr T Dowdeswell (Vice Chairman), Ms G Crabb, Ms M Coles (part), Mr K Adams, Ms J Walters
Apologies: Mr S Mitchell
In attendance: Ms A Blackburn (Community Engagement Officer, CDC), Mr T Watton (CDC), Mr C M H Gibson (the Clerk).
Approximately 90 members of the public were present.
1. Chairman's Opening Remarks
1.1 The Chairman read a pre-prepared statement which will be entered into the Parish Records. This is available separately from the Clerk.
2. Declarations of Interest
2.1 KH declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, and Tews, all of which have sites that the PC is considering putting forward (8 sites are being considered).
2.2 GC read relevant parts of the code of conduct for the benefit of members.
2.3 TD declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, Tews, and Dr Robinson (Mrs Newman), and knowledge of the Bearstead Settlement Trust.
2.4 MC declared personal friendships with Courts, Gibbs, Tews & prejudicial interests in Coles Trust Land.
2.5 JW declared personal friendships with Courts & Coles.
3. Presentation from Cherwell DC and Open Forum
3.1 Ms A Blackburn & Mr T Watton introduced themselves.
3.2 The purpose of the presentation was to provide information on the processes of the local development framework (which replaces the 1996 Cherwell Local Plan) and stressed the importance of community involvement at an early stage. The role of the various documents in the framework was explained.
3.3 The issues and options paper was released on the July 2006. This is the first stage. There are no proposals in this paper, only issues and options.
3.4 Sites have been gathered from 3 sources:- Site submission (14 March 2006), Urban potential study completed in 2005 on brownfield sites (excludes agricultural documents), sourced from recent planning history.
3.5 This includes housing sites, employment sites, and town centre/mixed use sites, provision for open space & recreation, comprehensive development areas, and other uses.
3.6 The adopted site allocations paper is to be adopted in November 2008. The evidence gathering phase started in November 2005 and continued to March 06. The issues and options document is currently under consultation, until 25th August 2006. The outcome of the consultation will be published in Dec 06/Jan 07. July 2007 the council will set out the sites it would like to develop and this will go to an independent assessor who will make recommendations to 2026. No additional sites for larger developments are likely to be grated permission over the next 20 years (although infill can continue). In January 2007, there will be further public consultation.
3.7 AB's role is to encourage comment in the light of local knowledge. Comments can be made on-line or in writing. Ideally comments should be related back to the site specific arguments made in the issues and options paper (table 4.2).
3.8 TW reiterated that they are seeking comments on all of the sites that are in the paper.
3.9 Sites can be submitted to up to 25th of August. One member of the public asked how we could comment on sites not yet submitted. CDC is keeping a folder of sites proposed for larger scale developments in Shenington and Alkerton, and people can comment on the sites put in between now and 25th August 2006 on line or in writing. (AB can be contracted on 01295 227970). NB the postcode on the flyer should be 4AA. GC confirmed that as of Friday 11th Aug, no other sites had yet been submitted to CDC.
3.10 There will be further opportunity for interactive consultation events.
3.11 CDC stated that they are looking for sites for over 10 dwellings, but are prepared to consider smaller sites in some villages. GC questioned whether this was correct since there was no reference to sites of less than 10 houses in any of the CDC documentation. GC agreed to follow this up.
Action: GC
3.12 CDC accepted that it is likely that most sites will be submitted on the 25th August. Details on all sites will be made publicly available at the Council offices (date TBC).
3.13 Page 17 of the document summarises the requirement for houses. CDC has to grant permission for 623 houses per year on average. Brownfield sites plus existing commitments mean that approximately 780 dwellings are required by 2026 for all rural areas in Banbury North Cherwell, outside Banbury itself. This equates to 36 per year in rural areas. The 780 does not include small sites.
3.14 The Upper Heyford development (700 houses net) is excluded. Bodicote and Bankside are included in the Banbury figure, not the rural area figure.
3.15 CDC were unable to state what % growth figure this represents, but this will be a lower rate than previously, on average.
3.16 CDC were unable to state how many houses in this parish this would be pro-rata.
3.17 The 780 figure includes the Category 1 villages where most development is likely to occur.
3.18 GC noted that the application for Quarry Farm was for 15 houses. She noted that in 1992 an application for 122 houses was made for the Top Farm site. [Clerk's note: Although representations were made by Planning Consultants around that time to develop over 14 acres of housing on this site, there was no application for 122 houses actually made]
3.19 The planning history will be taken into account at a later date. CDC will not prejudice any site at this stage.
3.20 KH asked if we could presume that there would be organic growth. Yes, as Government is applying pressure to increase the number of houses in the SE, which has a knock on effect to Oxfordshire and Banbury, though there is most pressure on the southern part of the district. CDC believes that Cherwell should not grow more than "organic growth".
3.21 Local Authorities do not generally plan specifically for blocks of less than 5-10 dwellings.
3.22 One member of the public asked what impact the new process has on the previous village categorisation criteria. CDC are reassessing the criteria. This can mean that villages may therefore change category.
3.23 One member of the public asked if Shenington can change. CDC noted that, in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 Shenington is Cat 1. In the Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 Shenington was to be treated as a Cat 2. It is therefore likely that Shenington will come out as Category 2.
3.24 KH asked what elements of planning gain that the PC could seek. CDC noted that planning gain is a complex subject, but in essence Local Authorities should be seeking more from developers, for example contributions to the education, health and recreation infrastructure. A number of studies have been commissioned to gather evidence to assist CDC when it approaches a developer for contributions towards infrastructure. CDC are therefore seeking issues from villages that need to be addressed.
3.25 One member of the public asked about the tip site. Representations need to be sent to OCC, but CDC agreed to forward representation on to OCC.
3.26 One member of the public asked why the meeting had not taken place in the church, which was a larger venue. KH explained the rationale for holding the meeting in the village hall.
3.27 One member of the public asked about Government policy regarding the number of houses per hectare. CDC were unable to answer this as that are debating the issue. In December 2006 CDC will look at the best densities for rural and urban areas separately. It is currently 40 per hectare for urban developments and 30 per hectare rural developments (this is equivalent to 12 per acre for developments in a rural area). These figures were confirmed by GC as being taken from the Urban Housing Potential Study 2005.
3.28 One member of the public noted that planning gain does not have to be part of a housing development, and that permission could be granted purely for a recreation area.
3.29 KH noted that all of the sites under consideration in Shenington and Alkerton fell foul of some planning or traffic, and wondered what would happen if the PC did not respond.
3.30 CDC noted that it unwise not to respond, but CDC would always look at each site application on its merits. Planning history will be considered.
3.31 CDC has identified 19 objectives for sustainability, in its core strategies issues and options paper. Each site will be assessed against these. CDC agreed to provide copies to circulate.
Action: CDC
3.32 One member of the public asked if some villages would be asked to take more than their fair share. CDC confirmed that there was a categorisation process underway.
3.33 It was noted that CDC would not be able to rely solely on windfall to meet its quotas.
3.34 CDC stressed the importance of commenting early, as greater weight was likely to be attached to earlier comments, albeit that comments can be reinforced at a later date. CDC also noted that it is more of an iterative process than existed previously.
3.35 One member of the public asked about affordable housing. CDC stated that principles of affordable housing were still under consideration. TD noted that for developments over 6 dwellings, typically over 1/3 was social housing.
3.36 KH asked to what extent we could rely on compulsory purchase to deliver planning gain, given that there was unlikely to be large developments in Shenington. CDC did not believe that it could be relied on.
3.37 KH noted that many sites had previously been rejected, and asked whether experts on highways and planning could help the PC in considering which sites to propose. Mr M Buxton (the Planning Officer) had previously stated the because of the lack of pavements and walls etc, that the village was not suitable for significant development. CDC noted that this really relates to categorisations.
3.38 One member of the public asked how CDC chose between several equivalent sites. CDC are likely to pick the best site(s) to go forward.
3.39 KH noted that Highways Dept had stated that Stocking Lane was not suitable for the school because of the pinch point on stocking lane, but now 3 further houses have been consented at Longacre.
3.40 One member of the public noted that the sewerage system in the village is overloaded.
3.41 One member of the public asked about infill. CDC noted that the current consultation was for sites of 10 or more dwellings (which is not infill).
3.42 One member of the public asked if sites on Outstanding Natural Beauty were taken into account. This is taken into account, but there are none in Shenington village itself, although a small part of the Parish (to the west of the village) is in the Cotswolds AONB. CDC confirmed that the design of a development would have regard to the open spaces in the village.
3.43 KH asked how CDC will ensure that the land allocated will last for 20 years. CDC will provide a "planning trajectory", that the Government will expect to be met by bringing sites forward or postponing sites where appropriate.
3.44 One member of the public asked if approved sites would be "rubber stamped" in the future. CDC noted that if approved, CDC would be seeking to bring those sites forward for development, but there will be some control over this, though it is certain that it will be developed.
3.45 The Chairman Thanked AB & TW for their time.
4. Discussion of topics relevant to the Parish Council response to Cherwell DC on development proposals for the period ending 2026 and second open forum
4.1 GC stated that copies of the relevant planning documents are available at her house.
4.2 JW believed that the process should be commenting on the sites in the document.
4.3 KH asked when the PC would be available to consider other sites to nominate.
4.4 GC did not believe that it was the PCs role to put forward additional sites, this was the role of the landowners and/or their agents.
4.5 KH proposed an extra meeting on 4th September 2006, this was agreed, and said that members of the public may put forward other sites for the PC to consider.
Action: Clerk
4.6 One member of the public asked about shared use of school facilities, including car parks, etc, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication and proposed investigating whether there were any restrictions.
4.7 Some members of the public supported this, but others noted that this would increase traffic on Stocking Lane.
4.8 MC stated that there were no restrictive covenants on the School Land or the School. This was queried and MC re-affirmed that she had checked this and was confident that there was no restrictive covenant at all.
4.9 A representative of the School Governors stated that a problem exists with use of school facilities, but would not comment further.
4.10 KH has spoken to a previous Governor, who mentioned no covenant on the land, but possibly was one with the school. KH will set the ball rolling by ensuring that the school is contacted formally.
Action: KH
4.11 KH had previously spoken to the village hall committee. It was suggested that all that was required was a risk assessment.
4.12 One member of the public noted that children of the village did use the facilities at the school informally, and that children did not increase the traffic at the school.
4.13 One member of the public noted that damage was caused recently at the school, and university students had played rugby at the school without permission.
4.14 It was suggested that an alternative was a separate public area for children.
4.15 One member of the public suggested that a new sewerage system would be advantageous.
4.16 TD noted that there is a keen interest in cricket in the village, and that the village would benefit from a cricket field. This received support from members of the public.
4.17 GC noted that the PC was eligible for grants for the purpose of creating a play area, and had previously written to land owners, but no suitable land was offered. GC noted that SITA landfill tax credits would be available for such projects and that the village did not have to own the land to benefit from this scheme - the land could be rented.
4.18 One member of the public challenged the assertion that the PC should propose sites, or even make a judgement of the suitability of sites. KH has met TW and AB who urged the PC to throw in everything now because it was easier to take it out later than to put it in.
[MC left the meeting at this point]
4.19 Several members of the public believed that the PC should only comment on sites in the document, and should not put forward sites (as each land owner could nominate sites, as indeed could any member of the public).
4.20 One member of the public noted that at the beginning of the meeting, the majority of members of the PC had declared interests (albeit not necessarily prejudicial) in 80% of the land in the village, and noted that it would create a very bad perception if the PC then put forward sites having declared an interest in them. He believed that this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
4.21 This was supported by other members of the public.
4.22 One member of the public asked if KH had a prejudicial interest in Coles' land based on KH comments at previous meetings. KH stated that he had no interest in Coles' land.
4.23 One member of the public was concerned that the PC started from the premise that there would be development come what may. He did not believe that this was the correct place to start, as the previous policy of the PC was to support the Category 2 categorisation. KH stated that he supported Shenington with Alkerton being a Category 2 village, and supported the criteria associated with this.
4.24 GC noted that between 1986 and March 2005 there were 16 completed dwellings, which together with the 9 current applications averages about 1/year.
4.25 KH committed to taking into account comments from the public, and will support village public opinion. KH proposed to hold a vote at the end of the exploratory period.
4.26 One member of the public asked if the vote could be sooner, noting that, at a packed meeting, a vote would provide a good idea of the opinion of the village.
4.27 KH's expectation was that something similar to the Conservation Area Status referendum would be arranged.
4.28 GC noted that she was of a different opinion to the Chairman and that the PC's response to the document should be limited to commenting only on those 3 sites that CDC has sought comment on. GC raised the issue of a response to the proposed extension to the tip which had not yet been addressed by the PC.
4.29 One member of the public asked how the PC became aware of the other sites. KH stated that that was not relevant. [The clerk understands that of the other sites nominated, only 2 were solely suggestions of PC members].
4.30 KA stated that the challenge was probably to secure Category 2 for the village.
4.31 One member of the public asked for an undertaking from the PC that it would only to comment on those sites in the document.
4.32 One member of the public questioned whether the PC understood planning gain, and noted that you do not have to put forward applications through this process to get facilities; you can apply directly for such facilities, e.g. children's facilities.
4.33 One member of the public noted that land owners who knew that they were not going to get planning permission were much more likely to sell or donate land for village purposes or to create new facilities.
4.34 One member of the public stated that the response that the Coles' land was not put forward by be Coles because they did not need to put it forward, not because they were uninterested in developing the land.
4.35 JW reiterated that she believed that the PC could comment only on the issues in the document and supported Category 2 for the village.
4.36 TD noted that technically the village was category 1, but he desires Category 2, principally because of the road infrastructure. He is happy to comment on SH 1 and SH2 as part of the PC response, but reserved the right to comment on others in a private capacity. He wished to consider the benefits of a modest larger development in terms of planning gain, as opposed to ad-hoc sites.
4.37 One member of the public asked how a development of 9 or 10 houses would relieve traffic. TD believed that this would lead to the construction of a new highway.
4.38 GC noted that the past planning history, especially the 1992 application for 122 houses [see Clerk's note at 3.18 above], meant that any development would be the thin end of the wedge.
4.39 TD noted that the framework document only included part of the 1992 site, and that it should not therefore be regarded as the thin end of a wedge.
4.40 One member of the public noted that a new road to the school could relieve traffic on Stocking Lane.
4.41 Another member of the public noted that it was traffic over the whole village would be made worse by additional development.
4.42 One member of the public noted that CDC wanted a 20 year plan, excluding windfall benefits, and the PC must comment on the 2 locations in the document.
4.43 GC noted that we also need to comment on the proposed extension to the Tip.
4.44 One member of the public asked about the financial value of planning gain from 9 houses. It was believed to be £2500 per house, i.e. £22,500. TD believed that the primary benefit from a development of 9 houses would be 2 social houses.
4.45 One member of the public noted that the exception site route was preferable as it guaranteed a small development available only to those with local connections, whereas the planning gain route would not ring fence affordable housing to those with strong village connections.
4.46 KH noted that the clear position of the meeting was that no development was desired on the sites listed, and that the PC should not propose other sites. It was agreed that this would be put forward as a very strong recommendation to the next meeting.
Action: Parish Councillors
5. Date of Next Meeting
5.1 The Next special meeting of Shenington with Alkerton Parish Council will be held at 8:00 pm on Monday 4th September 2006.
5.2 The meeting closed at 10:35 pm.
The Parish Council met in the Village Hall on Monday 14th August 2006.
Present: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman), Mr T Dowdeswell (Vice Chairman), Ms G Crabb, Ms M Coles (part), Mr K Adams, Ms J Walters
Apologies: Mr S Mitchell
In attendance: Ms A Blackburn (Community Engagement Officer, CDC), Mr T Watton (CDC), Mr C M H Gibson (the Clerk).
Approximately 90 members of the public were present.
1. Chairman's Opening Remarks
1.1 The Chairman read a pre-prepared statement which will be entered into the Parish Records. This is available separately from the Clerk.
2. Declarations of Interest
2.1 KH declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, and Tews, all of which have sites that the PC is considering putting forward (8 sites are being considered).
2.2 GC read relevant parts of the code of conduct for the benefit of members.
2.3 TD declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, Tews, and Dr Robinson (Mrs Newman), and knowledge of the Bearstead Settlement Trust.
2.4 MC declared personal friendships with Courts, Gibbs, Tews & prejudicial interests in Coles Trust Land.
2.5 JW declared personal friendships with Courts & Coles.
3. Presentation from Cherwell DC and Open Forum
3.1 Ms A Blackburn & Mr T Watton introduced themselves.
3.2 The purpose of the presentation was to provide information on the processes of the local development framework (which replaces the 1996 Cherwell Local Plan) and stressed the importance of community involvement at an early stage. The role of the various documents in the framework was explained.
3.3 The issues and options paper was released on the July 2006. This is the first stage. There are no proposals in this paper, only issues and options.
3.4 Sites have been gathered from 3 sources:- Site submission (14 March 2006), Urban potential study completed in 2005 on brownfield sites (excludes agricultural documents), sourced from recent planning history.
3.5 This includes housing sites, employment sites, and town centre/mixed use sites, provision for open space & recreation, comprehensive development areas, and other uses.
3.6 The adopted site allocations paper is to be adopted in November 2008. The evidence gathering phase started in November 2005 and continued to March 06. The issues and options document is currently under consultation, until 25th August 2006. The outcome of the consultation will be published in Dec 06/Jan 07. July 2007 the council will set out the sites it would like to develop and this will go to an independent assessor who will make recommendations to 2026. No additional sites for larger developments are likely to be grated permission over the next 20 years (although infill can continue). In January 2007, there will be further public consultation.
3.7 AB's role is to encourage comment in the light of local knowledge. Comments can be made on-line or in writing. Ideally comments should be related back to the site specific arguments made in the issues and options paper (table 4.2).
3.8 TW reiterated that they are seeking comments on all of the sites that are in the paper.
3.9 Sites can be submitted to up to 25th of August. One member of the public asked how we could comment on sites not yet submitted. CDC is keeping a folder of sites proposed for larger scale developments in Shenington and Alkerton, and people can comment on the sites put in between now and 25th August 2006 on line or in writing. (AB can be contracted on 01295 227970). NB the postcode on the flyer should be 4AA. GC confirmed that as of Friday 11th Aug, no other sites had yet been submitted to CDC.
3.10 There will be further opportunity for interactive consultation events.
3.11 CDC stated that they are looking for sites for over 10 dwellings, but are prepared to consider smaller sites in some villages. GC questioned whether this was correct since there was no reference to sites of less than 10 houses in any of the CDC documentation. GC agreed to follow this up.
Action: GC
3.12 CDC accepted that it is likely that most sites will be submitted on the 25th August. Details on all sites will be made publicly available at the Council offices (date TBC).
3.13 Page 17 of the document summarises the requirement for houses. CDC has to grant permission for 623 houses per year on average. Brownfield sites plus existing commitments mean that approximately 780 dwellings are required by 2026 for all rural areas in Banbury North Cherwell, outside Banbury itself. This equates to 36 per year in rural areas. The 780 does not include small sites.
3.14 The Upper Heyford development (700 houses net) is excluded. Bodicote and Bankside are included in the Banbury figure, not the rural area figure.
3.15 CDC were unable to state what % growth figure this represents, but this will be a lower rate than previously, on average.
3.16 CDC were unable to state how many houses in this parish this would be pro-rata.
3.17 The 780 figure includes the Category 1 villages where most development is likely to occur.
3.18 GC noted that the application for Quarry Farm was for 15 houses. She noted that in 1992 an application for 122 houses was made for the Top Farm site. [Clerk's note: Although representations were made by Planning Consultants around that time to develop over 14 acres of housing on this site, there was no application for 122 houses actually made]
3.19 The planning history will be taken into account at a later date. CDC will not prejudice any site at this stage.
3.20 KH asked if we could presume that there would be organic growth. Yes, as Government is applying pressure to increase the number of houses in the SE, which has a knock on effect to Oxfordshire and Banbury, though there is most pressure on the southern part of the district. CDC believes that Cherwell should not grow more than "organic growth".
3.21 Local Authorities do not generally plan specifically for blocks of less than 5-10 dwellings.
3.22 One member of the public asked what impact the new process has on the previous village categorisation criteria. CDC are reassessing the criteria. This can mean that villages may therefore change category.
3.23 One member of the public asked if Shenington can change. CDC noted that, in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 Shenington is Cat 1. In the Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 Shenington was to be treated as a Cat 2. It is therefore likely that Shenington will come out as Category 2.
3.24 KH asked what elements of planning gain that the PC could seek. CDC noted that planning gain is a complex subject, but in essence Local Authorities should be seeking more from developers, for example contributions to the education, health and recreation infrastructure. A number of studies have been commissioned to gather evidence to assist CDC when it approaches a developer for contributions towards infrastructure. CDC are therefore seeking issues from villages that need to be addressed.
3.25 One member of the public asked about the tip site. Representations need to be sent to OCC, but CDC agreed to forward representation on to OCC.
3.26 One member of the public asked why the meeting had not taken place in the church, which was a larger venue. KH explained the rationale for holding the meeting in the village hall.
3.27 One member of the public asked about Government policy regarding the number of houses per hectare. CDC were unable to answer this as that are debating the issue. In December 2006 CDC will look at the best densities for rural and urban areas separately. It is currently 40 per hectare for urban developments and 30 per hectare rural developments (this is equivalent to 12 per acre for developments in a rural area). These figures were confirmed by GC as being taken from the Urban Housing Potential Study 2005.
3.28 One member of the public noted that planning gain does not have to be part of a housing development, and that permission could be granted purely for a recreation area.
3.29 KH noted that all of the sites under consideration in Shenington and Alkerton fell foul of some planning or traffic, and wondered what would happen if the PC did not respond.
3.30 CDC noted that it unwise not to respond, but CDC would always look at each site application on its merits. Planning history will be considered.
3.31 CDC has identified 19 objectives for sustainability, in its core strategies issues and options paper. Each site will be assessed against these. CDC agreed to provide copies to circulate.
Action: CDC
3.32 One member of the public asked if some villages would be asked to take more than their fair share. CDC confirmed that there was a categorisation process underway.
3.33 It was noted that CDC would not be able to rely solely on windfall to meet its quotas.
3.34 CDC stressed the importance of commenting early, as greater weight was likely to be attached to earlier comments, albeit that comments can be reinforced at a later date. CDC also noted that it is more of an iterative process than existed previously.
3.35 One member of the public asked about affordable housing. CDC stated that principles of affordable housing were still under consideration. TD noted that for developments over 6 dwellings, typically over 1/3 was social housing.
3.36 KH asked to what extent we could rely on compulsory purchase to deliver planning gain, given that there was unlikely to be large developments in Shenington. CDC did not believe that it could be relied on.
3.37 KH noted that many sites had previously been rejected, and asked whether experts on highways and planning could help the PC in considering which sites to propose. Mr M Buxton (the Planning Officer) had previously stated the because of the lack of pavements and walls etc, that the village was not suitable for significant development. CDC noted that this really relates to categorisations.
3.38 One member of the public asked how CDC chose between several equivalent sites. CDC are likely to pick the best site(s) to go forward.
3.39 KH noted that Highways Dept had stated that Stocking Lane was not suitable for the school because of the pinch point on stocking lane, but now 3 further houses have been consented at Longacre.
3.40 One member of the public noted that the sewerage system in the village is overloaded.
3.41 One member of the public asked about infill. CDC noted that the current consultation was for sites of 10 or more dwellings (which is not infill).
3.42 One member of the public asked if sites on Outstanding Natural Beauty were taken into account. This is taken into account, but there are none in Shenington village itself, although a small part of the Parish (to the west of the village) is in the Cotswolds AONB. CDC confirmed that the design of a development would have regard to the open spaces in the village.
3.43 KH asked how CDC will ensure that the land allocated will last for 20 years. CDC will provide a "planning trajectory", that the Government will expect to be met by bringing sites forward or postponing sites where appropriate.
3.44 One member of the public asked if approved sites would be "rubber stamped" in the future. CDC noted that if approved, CDC would be seeking to bring those sites forward for development, but there will be some control over this, though it is certain that it will be developed.
3.45 The Chairman Thanked AB & TW for their time.
4. Discussion of topics relevant to the Parish Council response to Cherwell DC on development proposals for the period ending 2026 and second open forum
4.1 GC stated that copies of the relevant planning documents are available at her house.
4.2 JW believed that the process should be commenting on the sites in the document.
4.3 KH asked when the PC would be available to consider other sites to nominate.
4.4 GC did not believe that it was the PCs role to put forward additional sites, this was the role of the landowners and/or their agents.
4.5 KH proposed an extra meeting on 4th September 2006, this was agreed, and said that members of the public may put forward other sites for the PC to consider.
Action: Clerk
4.6 One member of the public asked about shared use of school facilities, including car parks, etc, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication and proposed investigating whether there were any restrictions.
4.7 Some members of the public supported this, but others noted that this would increase traffic on Stocking Lane.
4.8 MC stated that there were no restrictive covenants on the School Land or the School. This was queried and MC re-affirmed that she had checked this and was confident that there was no restrictive covenant at all.
4.9 A representative of the School Governors stated that a problem exists with use of school facilities, but would not comment further.
4.10 KH has spoken to a previous Governor, who mentioned no covenant on the land, but possibly was one with the school. KH will set the ball rolling by ensuring that the school is contacted formally.
Action: KH
4.11 KH had previously spoken to the village hall committee. It was suggested that all that was required was a risk assessment.
4.12 One member of the public noted that children of the village did use the facilities at the school informally, and that children did not increase the traffic at the school.
4.13 One member of the public noted that damage was caused recently at the school, and university students had played rugby at the school without permission.
4.14 It was suggested that an alternative was a separate public area for children.
4.15 One member of the public suggested that a new sewerage system would be advantageous.
4.16 TD noted that there is a keen interest in cricket in the village, and that the village would benefit from a cricket field. This received support from members of the public.
4.17 GC noted that the PC was eligible for grants for the purpose of creating a play area, and had previously written to land owners, but no suitable land was offered. GC noted that SITA landfill tax credits would be available for such projects and that the village did not have to own the land to benefit from this scheme - the land could be rented.
4.18 One member of the public challenged the assertion that the PC should propose sites, or even make a judgement of the suitability of sites. KH has met TW and AB who urged the PC to throw in everything now because it was easier to take it out later than to put it in.
[MC left the meeting at this point]
4.19 Several members of the public believed that the PC should only comment on sites in the document, and should not put forward sites (as each land owner could nominate sites, as indeed could any member of the public).
4.20 One member of the public noted that at the beginning of the meeting, the majority of members of the PC had declared interests (albeit not necessarily prejudicial) in 80% of the land in the village, and noted that it would create a very bad perception if the PC then put forward sites having declared an interest in them. He believed that this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
4.21 This was supported by other members of the public.
4.22 One member of the public asked if KH had a prejudicial interest in Coles' land based on KH comments at previous meetings. KH stated that he had no interest in Coles' land.
4.23 One member of the public was concerned that the PC started from the premise that there would be development come what may. He did not believe that this was the correct place to start, as the previous policy of the PC was to support the Category 2 categorisation. KH stated that he supported Shenington with Alkerton being a Category 2 village, and supported the criteria associated with this.
4.24 GC noted that between 1986 and March 2005 there were 16 completed dwellings, which together with the 9 current applications averages about 1/year.
4.25 KH committed to taking into account comments from the public, and will support village public opinion. KH proposed to hold a vote at the end of the exploratory period.
4.26 One member of the public asked if the vote could be sooner, noting that, at a packed meeting, a vote would provide a good idea of the opinion of the village.
4.27 KH's expectation was that something similar to the Conservation Area Status referendum would be arranged.
4.28 GC noted that she was of a different opinion to the Chairman and that the PC's response to the document should be limited to commenting only on those 3 sites that CDC has sought comment on. GC raised the issue of a response to the proposed extension to the tip which had not yet been addressed by the PC.
4.29 One member of the public asked how the PC became aware of the other sites. KH stated that that was not relevant. [The clerk understands that of the other sites nominated, only 2 were solely suggestions of PC members].
4.30 KA stated that the challenge was probably to secure Category 2 for the village.
4.31 One member of the public asked for an undertaking from the PC that it would only to comment on those sites in the document.
4.32 One member of the public questioned whether the PC understood planning gain, and noted that you do not have to put forward applications through this process to get facilities; you can apply directly for such facilities, e.g. children's facilities.
4.33 One member of the public noted that land owners who knew that they were not going to get planning permission were much more likely to sell or donate land for village purposes or to create new facilities.
4.34 One member of the public stated that the response that the Coles' land was not put forward by be Coles because they did not need to put it forward, not because they were uninterested in developing the land.
4.35 JW reiterated that she believed that the PC could comment only on the issues in the document and supported Category 2 for the village.
4.36 TD noted that technically the village was category 1, but he desires Category 2, principally because of the road infrastructure. He is happy to comment on SH 1 and SH2 as part of the PC response, but reserved the right to comment on others in a private capacity. He wished to consider the benefits of a modest larger development in terms of planning gain, as opposed to ad-hoc sites.
4.37 One member of the public asked how a development of 9 or 10 houses would relieve traffic. TD believed that this would lead to the construction of a new highway.
4.38 GC noted that the past planning history, especially the 1992 application for 122 houses [see Clerk's note at 3.18 above], meant that any development would be the thin end of the wedge.
4.39 TD noted that the framework document only included part of the 1992 site, and that it should not therefore be regarded as the thin end of a wedge.
4.40 One member of the public noted that a new road to the school could relieve traffic on Stocking Lane.
4.41 Another member of the public noted that it was traffic over the whole village would be made worse by additional development.
4.42 One member of the public noted that CDC wanted a 20 year plan, excluding windfall benefits, and the PC must comment on the 2 locations in the document.
4.43 GC noted that we also need to comment on the proposed extension to the Tip.
4.44 One member of the public asked about the financial value of planning gain from 9 houses. It was believed to be £2500 per house, i.e. £22,500. TD believed that the primary benefit from a development of 9 houses would be 2 social houses.
4.45 One member of the public noted that the exception site route was preferable as it guaranteed a small development available only to those with local connections, whereas the planning gain route would not ring fence affordable housing to those with strong village connections.
4.46 KH noted that the clear position of the meeting was that no development was desired on the sites listed, and that the PC should not propose other sites. It was agreed that this would be put forward as a very strong recommendation to the next meeting.
Action: Parish Councillors
5. Date of Next Meeting
5.1 The Next special meeting of Shenington with Alkerton Parish Council will be held at 8:00 pm on Monday 4th September 2006.
5.2 The meeting closed at 10:35 pm.