9 Sep 2006 - PARISH COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES: SHENINGTON WITH ALKERTON PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council met in the Village Hall on Monday 4th September 2006.
Present: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman), Mr T Dowdeswell (Vice Chairman), Ms G Crabb, Ms M Coles (part), Mr K Adams, Ms J Walters, Mr S Mitchell
In attendance: Mr C M H Gibson (the Clerk).
Approximately 70 members of the public were present.
1. Chairman's Opening Remarks
1.1 The Chairman
2. Declarations of Interest
2.1 KH declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, and Tews
2.2 TD declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, Tews, and Dr Robinson & Mrs Newman, and knowledge of the Bearstead Settlement Trust.
2.3 MC declared personal friendships with Courts, Gibbs, Tews & prejudicial interests in Coles Trust Land.
2.4 JW declared personal friendships with Courts & Coles.
3. Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 14th August 2006
3.1 MC noted that minute 3.18 correctly reported what was said, but asked for a note to the minutes to be added to the effect that no proposal or application for 122 houses was actually made.
3.2 MC noted that a representation was put in to CDC by Carl Middleditch, which also included adjacent land (R Tew's) without the knowledge of the owners of the land. Cllr Reynolds circulated the village with copies of the Representation. Nigel Moore Associates (NMA) then produced a proposal which was presented to the village at a meeting in the church and, after this amended to take account of village opinion. The Trustees were not happy with NMA?s proposal and submitted their own in February 1993. The final representation was for approximately 25 houses and 5 low cost dwellings, tree planting, open space etc over an area of 7.5acres. The balance of the 14 acres was for the school site, playing field and agricultural.
3.3 GC noted that she had already notified the Clerk formally in writing that no actual application was made, withdrawing her statement that an application had been made. GC withdrew the reference to 122 houses.
3.4 MC noted that the correct names for "Top Farm Fields" were "The Leys" and "Thompson Pieces".
3.5 Subject to the above amendments the minutes were agreed.
4. First Open Forum (10 mins)
4.1 KH advised that the PC has very recently received a letter from Mr M Wright seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). KH has provided a detailed written reply to Mr Wright, and invited other PCs to respond to the questions raised.
4.2 Other than the CDC presentation at the previous PC meeting, two meetings have been held with CDC.
· TD, MC and KH attended 1 meeting with CDC in mid July with Mr T Whatton. A handwritten record is available on request.
· JW, GC, MC and KH met with CDC on 21 Aug 2006.
4.3 No PC member has encouraged any landowner to put forward sites.
4.4 KH had copied CDC in on a draft memorandum which listed 6 sites which he and TD had hoped that the PC would discuss. Neither TD, MC, JW, GC, SM nor KA have suggested sites to CDC.
4.5 TD and KH met with or spoken with all but 1 of the landowners whose sites they had mooted for discussion by the PC (and were listed in the draft memorandum).
4.6 GC read her formal response to the Clerk, which is available on request.
4.7 KH noted that a further information request from another member of the public had been made, seeking copies of letters with CDC on this topic. Only GC has written letters to CDC. These will be provided as soon as reasonably practicable.
4.8 KH noted that CDC have received over 700 nominations for sites, and that Mr T Whatton has now left CDC, leaving CDC with an administrative logjam. CDC were unable to say if any sites in Shenington have been nominated or proposed.
4.9 GC noted that there may be some errors in the draft response that KH had provided to Mr Wright, and agreed to circulate her concerns to Parish Councillors and the Clerk so that the facts could be verified. KH noted that the FoIA request had been received very recently and that he felt it important to respond as best he could in the time available. KH will consider any queries raised by GC and update Mr Wright if appropriate.
4.10 Action: CG, KH
4.11 Mr M Wright read from his Freedom of Information Act letter to set the context for members of the public. He thanked the PC for the information provided, but asked if the Chairman or any other PC encouraged land owners to put forward sites, given that 6 sites were put on the village website apparently at the behest of KH.
4.12 KH stated that no landowner had been encouraged by him to submit or nominate any site, and noted that full details were provided in the draft response letter sent to Mr Wright.
4.13 One member of the public asked if any sites were put forward without the knowledge of their owners. KH acknowledged that this was in fact true as he and TD had been unable to contact one of the 6 landowners, although it was the intention of the PC to inform all owners that their sites were under discussion.
4.14 Another member of the public asked how the sites arose for discussion. KH noted that he and TD had developed the list. TD explained that this was as a result of a request by Mr T Whatton at the July meeting with CDC.
4.15 One member of the public noted that the meeting notes stated clearly that SAPC could put forward sites if it wished, and did not ask for SAPC to put forward sites. KH noted that the sites were considered and discussed by PCs, but were not put forward. However, CDC were made aware of the sites by virtue of CDC being copied in on a draft memo to correct factual accuracies, but these sites have not been proposed.
4.16 One member of the public felt that it was implausible that a draft memo to PCs should be copied to CDC. KH noted that CDC provided confusing advice on planning and that, consequently, he had felt it prudent to ask CDC to check his interpretation.
4.17 One member of the public raised the issue of the 122 houses, and stated that a presentation by Nigel More associates showed the potential for developing over 14 acres, which was seized upon by Banbury Guardian.
4.18 One member of the public asked about Minute 3.22 regarding categorisation, and whether SAPC has received assurances that Category 2 still means what it used to. GC noted that CDC are reassessing the criteria, but advised using the current definition as a working assumption. TD noted that there is unlikely to be a significant change in criteria. GC will request conformation of the definition from CDC.
Action: GC
4.19 One member of the public noted that minute 3.40 stated that the sewerage system was overloaded and that Thames Water and the EA held the keys to solving this, and asked if there was any assurance that the sewerage system would be improved if development occurred. KH noted that TW & EA had not raised this as an issue for the 3 recently proposed houses on Stocking Lane. TD noted that one of the planning gains form a development would be the improvement of the sewerage system, and that the PC would insist on this.
5. Discussion and formulation of the PC's response to Cherwell DC's Issues and Options Paper on development proposals for the period ending 2026
5.1 MC left the meeting at this point.
5.2 There was some discussion of SH1 and SH2.
5.3 KA noted that any of the planning gains for the village were ones we were owed in any case, and should not need to suffer further development in order to achieve them.
5.4 JW was in favour of development on SH1 if it improved the traffic problem. TD was in favour of limited development on SH1 of perhaps 9 to 12 properties, which he believed was consistent with the organic growth rates, and may deliver potential planning gains.
5.5 All other members were opposed to development on that site.
5.6 No member believed that SH2 should be in the structure plan. GC tabled draft responses on sites SH1 and SH2.
5.7 MC rejoined the meeting.
5.8 KH noted that there were a number of general issues, including traffic and road safety that should be included in the response to CDC.
5.9 GC noted that this was set out in her draft response. SM noted that several villagers expressed concerns relating to speeding, and suggested that this be looked into.
5.10 GC read out the relevant sections on traffic from the draft responses on SH1 and SH2 and the general response.
5.11 KH noted that avoiding development would avoid an increasing traffic, but we also have present traffic concerns.
5.12 It was agreed that traffic concerns should be raised with CDC.
5.13 KH asked if the PC wished to discourage development on side roads. MS noted that OCC usually made such decisions. GC felt that the PC should go further than this and vote against all significant development.
5.14 KH proposed that no sites should be promoted. This was agreed.
5.15 It was agreed that the village was entitled to a decent sewerage system with or without development. This was agreed.
5.16 KH noted that the Village Hall Committee has asked the PC to propose the development of a new village hall. KH noted the historic nature of the existing village hall, and the option to use the school has for PC meetings. GC did not see the merit of building a third hall in the village.
5.17 KH asked if it had been confirmed that there were no restrictive covenants on the school. MC confirmed that there were no covenants restricting the use of the school.
5.18 TD, KH and KA supported the proposal for a new village hall.
5.19 It was agreed that the Chairman to speak to John Evans as to whether they want a new village hall.
Action: KH
5.20 KH noted that there has not been a survey of the need for affordable housing, and that the stock has fallen by 9 in the last 20 years or so, contrary to CDC and Government policy. There was a presumption that it would usually be subsidised by other development.
5.21 GC stressed that the routes to affordable housing that did not involve development give more control over who is in entitled to reside in those houses.
5.22 TD supported the suggestion of a housing needs survey, but believed that there was anecdotal evidence of a need.
5.23 KA proposed that social housing be kept separate from the response to CDC. This was agreed.
5.24 TD noted that several individuals have asked for a cricket pitch. KH noted that a children?s playground would be welcomed. KA believed that further consideration was required. GC noted that playgrounds could also be done via the rural exception site route. SM noted that the school could probably be used.
5.25 It was agreed unanimously that that the playground issue should be kept separate from the CDC response.
5.26 TD expressed regret that the village cricket team did not have a pitch in Shenington. KH noted that this was supported at the last meeting. SM noted that the maintenance requirement would need careful consideration, but hoped that the land could be donated or loaned and volunteers found to maintain it.
5.27 It was agreed that this should not be linked to development or to the response to CDC.
5.28 The issue of the draft response was raised. MC left the meeting at this point.
5.29 KA noted that GC?s draft response was well written and consistent with the PC wishes.
5.30 It was agreed that the response would be within the framework of the draft response and comments to GC by Wednesday, s.t. she can finalise and send the response to CDC.
Action: All
6. Matters arising from the Parish Council response to Cherwell DC and the consultation process
6.1 KH noted that the decision needed to be communicated to villagers and was very much in favour with the village being consulted again if further sites in the village have been nominated. This was agreed.
6.2 MC rejoined the meeting at this point.
7. PC response to the Auditors' Letter of 17 August 2006
7.1 The amended draft response and the consequential amendments to the accounts were agreed.
Action: RFO & Chairman
8. Change of RFO (responsible financial officer)
8.1 Due to changing personal circumstances, the current RFO (Mr C M H Gibson) will cease to undertake this role.
8.2 TD asked for upstanding, numerate individuals to volunteer.
8.3 It was agreed that TD should progress this, and appoint a new RFO as soon as practicable.
Action: TD
9. Second Open Forum
9.1 One member of the public asked if the response would be sent on time. It was unanimously agreed that it would.
9.2 One member of the public asked if the public could use the school hall and asked the PC to investigate with the school what social and recreation facilities. This was agreed. KH noted that he had started the ball rolling with the school, who had confirmed that there are no covenants restricting its use. KH has asked the village hall committee to take forward the use of the school hall for village hall events.
9.3 One member of the public asked the PC to clarify the use of the tennis courts at the school. This was agreed.
Action: KH
9.4 One member of the public noted that at the last meeting the village stated that it did not want any more development. KH noted that no vote was actually taken, but that opinion was in favour of organic growth but against large scale developments.
9.5 Another member of the public noted that what people wanted was a category 2 categorisation. This was agreed.
9.6 One member of the public asked about SH3. KH noted that it was included due to an error by CDC, and that there was no application for building on the site, which is not even in the village.
9.7 GC noted that this was raised in the minerals and waste consumption, and stated that KH?s response was inadequate in terms of waste (albeit that the parts of the response on minerals were fine). KH suggested that GC raise this at the next PC meeting.
Action: GC
9.8 One member of the public asked about SH3, since the CDC representatives asked the PC to respond to OCC.
9.9 Several other members of the public asked about portfolios. KH noted that GC continues to hold planning, and that other portfolios will be discussed at the next meeting. One member of the public believed that the lack of responsibilities meant that some opportunities to influence matters on behalf other village have been missed. KH acknowledged this.
9.10 One member of the public asked about a previous statement by KH in relation to his belief (at that time) that social hosing must be sited on SH1. KH noted that there are few sites available, but that he is committed to represent village opinion and does not support development on SH1.
9.11 Several members of the public stated that they were unhappy with how the PC was being runs and asked KH to step down.
9.12 One member of the public objected to TD?s speech about a road linking to Rattlecombe and noted that once such a road existed planning officers believed that it would be very difficult to prevent significant development. TD noted that his views were clear for the reasons he gave.
10. Date of Next Meeting
10.1 The next meeting of Shenington with Alkerton Parish Council will be held at 8:30 pm on Wednesday 13th September 2006.
10.2 The meeting closed at 10:45 pm.
The Parish Council met in the Village Hall on Monday 4th September 2006.
Present: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman), Mr T Dowdeswell (Vice Chairman), Ms G Crabb, Ms M Coles (part), Mr K Adams, Ms J Walters, Mr S Mitchell
In attendance: Mr C M H Gibson (the Clerk).
Approximately 70 members of the public were present.
1. Chairman's Opening Remarks
1.1 The Chairman
2. Declarations of Interest
2.1 KH declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, and Tews
2.2 TD declared personal friendships with Gibbs, Courts, Coles, Tews, and Dr Robinson & Mrs Newman, and knowledge of the Bearstead Settlement Trust.
2.3 MC declared personal friendships with Courts, Gibbs, Tews & prejudicial interests in Coles Trust Land.
2.4 JW declared personal friendships with Courts & Coles.
3. Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 14th August 2006
3.1 MC noted that minute 3.18 correctly reported what was said, but asked for a note to the minutes to be added to the effect that no proposal or application for 122 houses was actually made.
3.2 MC noted that a representation was put in to CDC by Carl Middleditch, which also included adjacent land (R Tew's) without the knowledge of the owners of the land. Cllr Reynolds circulated the village with copies of the Representation. Nigel Moore Associates (NMA) then produced a proposal which was presented to the village at a meeting in the church and, after this amended to take account of village opinion. The Trustees were not happy with NMA?s proposal and submitted their own in February 1993. The final representation was for approximately 25 houses and 5 low cost dwellings, tree planting, open space etc over an area of 7.5acres. The balance of the 14 acres was for the school site, playing field and agricultural.
3.3 GC noted that she had already notified the Clerk formally in writing that no actual application was made, withdrawing her statement that an application had been made. GC withdrew the reference to 122 houses.
3.4 MC noted that the correct names for "Top Farm Fields" were "The Leys" and "Thompson Pieces".
3.5 Subject to the above amendments the minutes were agreed.
4. First Open Forum (10 mins)
4.1 KH advised that the PC has very recently received a letter from Mr M Wright seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). KH has provided a detailed written reply to Mr Wright, and invited other PCs to respond to the questions raised.
4.2 Other than the CDC presentation at the previous PC meeting, two meetings have been held with CDC.
· TD, MC and KH attended 1 meeting with CDC in mid July with Mr T Whatton. A handwritten record is available on request.
· JW, GC, MC and KH met with CDC on 21 Aug 2006.
4.3 No PC member has encouraged any landowner to put forward sites.
4.4 KH had copied CDC in on a draft memorandum which listed 6 sites which he and TD had hoped that the PC would discuss. Neither TD, MC, JW, GC, SM nor KA have suggested sites to CDC.
4.5 TD and KH met with or spoken with all but 1 of the landowners whose sites they had mooted for discussion by the PC (and were listed in the draft memorandum).
4.6 GC read her formal response to the Clerk, which is available on request.
4.7 KH noted that a further information request from another member of the public had been made, seeking copies of letters with CDC on this topic. Only GC has written letters to CDC. These will be provided as soon as reasonably practicable.
4.8 KH noted that CDC have received over 700 nominations for sites, and that Mr T Whatton has now left CDC, leaving CDC with an administrative logjam. CDC were unable to say if any sites in Shenington have been nominated or proposed.
4.9 GC noted that there may be some errors in the draft response that KH had provided to Mr Wright, and agreed to circulate her concerns to Parish Councillors and the Clerk so that the facts could be verified. KH noted that the FoIA request had been received very recently and that he felt it important to respond as best he could in the time available. KH will consider any queries raised by GC and update Mr Wright if appropriate.
4.10 Action: CG, KH
4.11 Mr M Wright read from his Freedom of Information Act letter to set the context for members of the public. He thanked the PC for the information provided, but asked if the Chairman or any other PC encouraged land owners to put forward sites, given that 6 sites were put on the village website apparently at the behest of KH.
4.12 KH stated that no landowner had been encouraged by him to submit or nominate any site, and noted that full details were provided in the draft response letter sent to Mr Wright.
4.13 One member of the public asked if any sites were put forward without the knowledge of their owners. KH acknowledged that this was in fact true as he and TD had been unable to contact one of the 6 landowners, although it was the intention of the PC to inform all owners that their sites were under discussion.
4.14 Another member of the public asked how the sites arose for discussion. KH noted that he and TD had developed the list. TD explained that this was as a result of a request by Mr T Whatton at the July meeting with CDC.
4.15 One member of the public noted that the meeting notes stated clearly that SAPC could put forward sites if it wished, and did not ask for SAPC to put forward sites. KH noted that the sites were considered and discussed by PCs, but were not put forward. However, CDC were made aware of the sites by virtue of CDC being copied in on a draft memo to correct factual accuracies, but these sites have not been proposed.
4.16 One member of the public felt that it was implausible that a draft memo to PCs should be copied to CDC. KH noted that CDC provided confusing advice on planning and that, consequently, he had felt it prudent to ask CDC to check his interpretation.
4.17 One member of the public raised the issue of the 122 houses, and stated that a presentation by Nigel More associates showed the potential for developing over 14 acres, which was seized upon by Banbury Guardian.
4.18 One member of the public asked about Minute 3.22 regarding categorisation, and whether SAPC has received assurances that Category 2 still means what it used to. GC noted that CDC are reassessing the criteria, but advised using the current definition as a working assumption. TD noted that there is unlikely to be a significant change in criteria. GC will request conformation of the definition from CDC.
Action: GC
4.19 One member of the public noted that minute 3.40 stated that the sewerage system was overloaded and that Thames Water and the EA held the keys to solving this, and asked if there was any assurance that the sewerage system would be improved if development occurred. KH noted that TW & EA had not raised this as an issue for the 3 recently proposed houses on Stocking Lane. TD noted that one of the planning gains form a development would be the improvement of the sewerage system, and that the PC would insist on this.
5. Discussion and formulation of the PC's response to Cherwell DC's Issues and Options Paper on development proposals for the period ending 2026
5.1 MC left the meeting at this point.
5.2 There was some discussion of SH1 and SH2.
5.3 KA noted that any of the planning gains for the village were ones we were owed in any case, and should not need to suffer further development in order to achieve them.
5.4 JW was in favour of development on SH1 if it improved the traffic problem. TD was in favour of limited development on SH1 of perhaps 9 to 12 properties, which he believed was consistent with the organic growth rates, and may deliver potential planning gains.
5.5 All other members were opposed to development on that site.
5.6 No member believed that SH2 should be in the structure plan. GC tabled draft responses on sites SH1 and SH2.
5.7 MC rejoined the meeting.
5.8 KH noted that there were a number of general issues, including traffic and road safety that should be included in the response to CDC.
5.9 GC noted that this was set out in her draft response. SM noted that several villagers expressed concerns relating to speeding, and suggested that this be looked into.
5.10 GC read out the relevant sections on traffic from the draft responses on SH1 and SH2 and the general response.
5.11 KH noted that avoiding development would avoid an increasing traffic, but we also have present traffic concerns.
5.12 It was agreed that traffic concerns should be raised with CDC.
5.13 KH asked if the PC wished to discourage development on side roads. MS noted that OCC usually made such decisions. GC felt that the PC should go further than this and vote against all significant development.
5.14 KH proposed that no sites should be promoted. This was agreed.
5.15 It was agreed that the village was entitled to a decent sewerage system with or without development. This was agreed.
5.16 KH noted that the Village Hall Committee has asked the PC to propose the development of a new village hall. KH noted the historic nature of the existing village hall, and the option to use the school has for PC meetings. GC did not see the merit of building a third hall in the village.
5.17 KH asked if it had been confirmed that there were no restrictive covenants on the school. MC confirmed that there were no covenants restricting the use of the school.
5.18 TD, KH and KA supported the proposal for a new village hall.
5.19 It was agreed that the Chairman to speak to John Evans as to whether they want a new village hall.
Action: KH
5.20 KH noted that there has not been a survey of the need for affordable housing, and that the stock has fallen by 9 in the last 20 years or so, contrary to CDC and Government policy. There was a presumption that it would usually be subsidised by other development.
5.21 GC stressed that the routes to affordable housing that did not involve development give more control over who is in entitled to reside in those houses.
5.22 TD supported the suggestion of a housing needs survey, but believed that there was anecdotal evidence of a need.
5.23 KA proposed that social housing be kept separate from the response to CDC. This was agreed.
5.24 TD noted that several individuals have asked for a cricket pitch. KH noted that a children?s playground would be welcomed. KA believed that further consideration was required. GC noted that playgrounds could also be done via the rural exception site route. SM noted that the school could probably be used.
5.25 It was agreed unanimously that that the playground issue should be kept separate from the CDC response.
5.26 TD expressed regret that the village cricket team did not have a pitch in Shenington. KH noted that this was supported at the last meeting. SM noted that the maintenance requirement would need careful consideration, but hoped that the land could be donated or loaned and volunteers found to maintain it.
5.27 It was agreed that this should not be linked to development or to the response to CDC.
5.28 The issue of the draft response was raised. MC left the meeting at this point.
5.29 KA noted that GC?s draft response was well written and consistent with the PC wishes.
5.30 It was agreed that the response would be within the framework of the draft response and comments to GC by Wednesday, s.t. she can finalise and send the response to CDC.
Action: All
6. Matters arising from the Parish Council response to Cherwell DC and the consultation process
6.1 KH noted that the decision needed to be communicated to villagers and was very much in favour with the village being consulted again if further sites in the village have been nominated. This was agreed.
6.2 MC rejoined the meeting at this point.
7. PC response to the Auditors' Letter of 17 August 2006
7.1 The amended draft response and the consequential amendments to the accounts were agreed.
Action: RFO & Chairman
8. Change of RFO (responsible financial officer)
8.1 Due to changing personal circumstances, the current RFO (Mr C M H Gibson) will cease to undertake this role.
8.2 TD asked for upstanding, numerate individuals to volunteer.
8.3 It was agreed that TD should progress this, and appoint a new RFO as soon as practicable.
Action: TD
9. Second Open Forum
9.1 One member of the public asked if the response would be sent on time. It was unanimously agreed that it would.
9.2 One member of the public asked if the public could use the school hall and asked the PC to investigate with the school what social and recreation facilities. This was agreed. KH noted that he had started the ball rolling with the school, who had confirmed that there are no covenants restricting its use. KH has asked the village hall committee to take forward the use of the school hall for village hall events.
9.3 One member of the public asked the PC to clarify the use of the tennis courts at the school. This was agreed.
Action: KH
9.4 One member of the public noted that at the last meeting the village stated that it did not want any more development. KH noted that no vote was actually taken, but that opinion was in favour of organic growth but against large scale developments.
9.5 Another member of the public noted that what people wanted was a category 2 categorisation. This was agreed.
9.6 One member of the public asked about SH3. KH noted that it was included due to an error by CDC, and that there was no application for building on the site, which is not even in the village.
9.7 GC noted that this was raised in the minerals and waste consumption, and stated that KH?s response was inadequate in terms of waste (albeit that the parts of the response on minerals were fine). KH suggested that GC raise this at the next PC meeting.
Action: GC
9.8 One member of the public asked about SH3, since the CDC representatives asked the PC to respond to OCC.
9.9 Several other members of the public asked about portfolios. KH noted that GC continues to hold planning, and that other portfolios will be discussed at the next meeting. One member of the public believed that the lack of responsibilities meant that some opportunities to influence matters on behalf other village have been missed. KH acknowledged this.
9.10 One member of the public asked about a previous statement by KH in relation to his belief (at that time) that social hosing must be sited on SH1. KH noted that there are few sites available, but that he is committed to represent village opinion and does not support development on SH1.
9.11 Several members of the public stated that they were unhappy with how the PC was being runs and asked KH to step down.
9.12 One member of the public objected to TD?s speech about a road linking to Rattlecombe and noted that once such a road existed planning officers believed that it would be very difficult to prevent significant development. TD noted that his views were clear for the reasons he gave.
10. Date of Next Meeting
10.1 The next meeting of Shenington with Alkerton Parish Council will be held at 8:30 pm on Wednesday 13th September 2006.
10.2 The meeting closed at 10:45 pm.