10 Dec 2006 - PARISH COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES: SHENINGTON WITH ALKERTON PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council met in the Village Hall on Tuesday 5th December 2006.
Present: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman) [KH], Mr T Dowdeswell (Vice Chairman) [TD], Mr K Adams, [KA], Ms G Crabb [GC], Mr S Mitchell [SM], Ms J Walters [JW], Mrs M Coles [MC]
Apologies: None
In attendance: Mr C M H Gibson (the Clerk)
Approximately 25 members of the public were present.
1. Chairman's Opening Remarks
1.1 KH welcomed members of the public to the extraordinary meeting and explained the main purpose was to discuss the PC position on the Cherwell Planning Framework.
2. Declarations of Interest
2.1 MC declared an interest in 2 of the 3 areas of land subject to the supplementary consultation by CDC.
2.2 TD noted that he was a client of Pegasus Planning group, advisors to one of the landowners (this was not believed to be a prejudicial interest).
3. The Auditors Report
3.1 TD circulated copies of the Auditors report and took the PC through it.
3.2 TD thought that BDO was being somewhat over cautious and over critical given the size of the PC and the controls in place, and believed that the PC systems were appropriate and robust.
3.3 A risk assessment will be undertaken early in 2007.
Action : TD
3.4 TD has prepared a draft budget which will be circulated and discussed at the next meeting.
Action: TD
3.5 KH noted that the letter seemed to be a standard letter as much of it had no application to Shenington with Alkerton.
3.6 The audit report was adopted unanimously.
3.7 The current bank balance is £8409.12 as at 20 November 2006.
3.8 Outstanding amounts exist for expenses (PC Phone line), Clerk?s salary, hire of the village hall and audit fees.
4. Wayleave at 2 The Green
4.1 An application had been received from a resident of the Village to run an underground electric cable across the front of 1 & 2 the Green, which removed the need to have an electricity pole and an overhead cable.
4.2 The PC unanimously approved this and agreed that KH and TD could sign the requisite paperwork witnessed by the Clerk to facilitate this.
Action: KH/TD
5. First Open Forum
5.1 One member of the public asked what precept was proposed by the PC. TD noted that the draft budget was for the same precept as last year (£5000.00).
5.2 One member of the Public asked for the details of the wayleave discussed above. KH explained this.
5.3 MC Left the meeting at this point.
5.4 One member asked if KH had raised the issue of the breach in the wall opposite the level following the previous meeting. KH noted that the owners had been away until recently and that had not yet got round to this.
Action : KH
6. The Parish Council response to the CDC Supplementary Consultation
6.1 The PC has received and considered the latest round of consultation from CDC. It was noted that the views of Members has not changed.
6.2 KH proposed that the response should be in a similar line to the previous response. This was agreed.
Action : GC/Clerk
6.3 GC readout the briefing notes for the sites in queston.
6.4 GC noted that there were some errors in one of the submission letters. It was agreed that the PC should address these in its current response.
Action : GC/Clerk
6.5 There was some discussion of the level of employment at Sugarswell, and it was noted that there was more employment in the village than in the past, but almost no employees there lived in the village.
6.6 KH has spoken at length to Cllr Reynolds on this subject, whilst attending a conference, who expected that most villages would reject the plans, thereby allowing CDC to impose its decision. CDC has to find sites for 800 houses in 70 villages, and the village categorisation is no protection, since the exercise is to identify exceptions to the normal category process. CDC is not allowed by Government to include infill in this total. The PC therefore needs to consider how likely it was for some housing to be imposed in Shenington or Alkerton.
6.7 The village has many facilities that are desirable, including a primary school, pub, employment (albeit not a shop or decent pavements, or a full bus service).
6.8 GC noted that CDC had continuously encouraged Shenington to become a Conservation Area, and might therefore be reluctant to impose significant scale development.
6.9 SM noted that urbanised villages met more of the criteria then Shenington and would therefore be more likely targets. GC supported this, and noted that development in Shenington may not be consistent with the CDC "Key Spacial Issues".
6.10 TD noted that some of the urbanised villages felt dumped upon.
7. Second Open Forum
7.1 One member of the public asked it the PC would encourage all residents to write to CDC to put forward their personal views. KH noted that the PC has agreed to consult the village before reaching a decision.
7.2 GC noted that many residents wrote in to the previous round of consultation.
7.3 KH noted that the PC would normally include such material in the Village Green, but the publication timescale obviously precluded this.
7.4 It was agreed that a flyer be put round the village to deal with this. KH agreed to draft this and circulate to members for comment, to enable it to be distributed in time for Villagers to be able to send in their views to CDC before the consultation closes on 22 December 2006.
Action: KH
7.5 One member of the public noted that 6 sites had been put forward in Shenington despite it being a small village, and asked how this compared with other villages. It was believed that this was higher than was typical.
7.6 One member of the public did not believe that this was important as it may be that none of the sites are acceptable. He also noted that Government has said very recently that it may be possible for infill to be included in the total, and that as Shenington and Alkerton are on the edges of the county they may be seen as remote which would reduce the likelihood of development.
7.7 GC noted that Alkerton is defined as a Category 3 village in some recent correspondence on a planning appeal.
8. Date of Next Meeting
8.1 The next ordinary Parish Council meeting will be held on Wednesday 10th January 2007 in the Village Hall at 8:30 pm.
8.2 The meeting closed at 9:20 pm.
The Parish Council met in the Village Hall on Tuesday 5th December 2006.
Present: Mr K Hainsworth (Chairman) [KH], Mr T Dowdeswell (Vice Chairman) [TD], Mr K Adams, [KA], Ms G Crabb [GC], Mr S Mitchell [SM], Ms J Walters [JW], Mrs M Coles [MC]
Apologies: None
In attendance: Mr C M H Gibson (the Clerk)
Approximately 25 members of the public were present.
1. Chairman's Opening Remarks
1.1 KH welcomed members of the public to the extraordinary meeting and explained the main purpose was to discuss the PC position on the Cherwell Planning Framework.
2. Declarations of Interest
2.1 MC declared an interest in 2 of the 3 areas of land subject to the supplementary consultation by CDC.
2.2 TD noted that he was a client of Pegasus Planning group, advisors to one of the landowners (this was not believed to be a prejudicial interest).
3. The Auditors Report
3.1 TD circulated copies of the Auditors report and took the PC through it.
3.2 TD thought that BDO was being somewhat over cautious and over critical given the size of the PC and the controls in place, and believed that the PC systems were appropriate and robust.
3.3 A risk assessment will be undertaken early in 2007.
Action : TD
3.4 TD has prepared a draft budget which will be circulated and discussed at the next meeting.
Action: TD
3.5 KH noted that the letter seemed to be a standard letter as much of it had no application to Shenington with Alkerton.
3.6 The audit report was adopted unanimously.
3.7 The current bank balance is £8409.12 as at 20 November 2006.
3.8 Outstanding amounts exist for expenses (PC Phone line), Clerk?s salary, hire of the village hall and audit fees.
4. Wayleave at 2 The Green
4.1 An application had been received from a resident of the Village to run an underground electric cable across the front of 1 & 2 the Green, which removed the need to have an electricity pole and an overhead cable.
4.2 The PC unanimously approved this and agreed that KH and TD could sign the requisite paperwork witnessed by the Clerk to facilitate this.
Action: KH/TD
5. First Open Forum
5.1 One member of the public asked what precept was proposed by the PC. TD noted that the draft budget was for the same precept as last year (£5000.00).
5.2 One member of the Public asked for the details of the wayleave discussed above. KH explained this.
5.3 MC Left the meeting at this point.
5.4 One member asked if KH had raised the issue of the breach in the wall opposite the level following the previous meeting. KH noted that the owners had been away until recently and that had not yet got round to this.
Action : KH
6. The Parish Council response to the CDC Supplementary Consultation
6.1 The PC has received and considered the latest round of consultation from CDC. It was noted that the views of Members has not changed.
6.2 KH proposed that the response should be in a similar line to the previous response. This was agreed.
Action : GC/Clerk
6.3 GC readout the briefing notes for the sites in queston.
6.4 GC noted that there were some errors in one of the submission letters. It was agreed that the PC should address these in its current response.
Action : GC/Clerk
6.5 There was some discussion of the level of employment at Sugarswell, and it was noted that there was more employment in the village than in the past, but almost no employees there lived in the village.
6.6 KH has spoken at length to Cllr Reynolds on this subject, whilst attending a conference, who expected that most villages would reject the plans, thereby allowing CDC to impose its decision. CDC has to find sites for 800 houses in 70 villages, and the village categorisation is no protection, since the exercise is to identify exceptions to the normal category process. CDC is not allowed by Government to include infill in this total. The PC therefore needs to consider how likely it was for some housing to be imposed in Shenington or Alkerton.
6.7 The village has many facilities that are desirable, including a primary school, pub, employment (albeit not a shop or decent pavements, or a full bus service).
6.8 GC noted that CDC had continuously encouraged Shenington to become a Conservation Area, and might therefore be reluctant to impose significant scale development.
6.9 SM noted that urbanised villages met more of the criteria then Shenington and would therefore be more likely targets. GC supported this, and noted that development in Shenington may not be consistent with the CDC "Key Spacial Issues".
6.10 TD noted that some of the urbanised villages felt dumped upon.
7. Second Open Forum
7.1 One member of the public asked it the PC would encourage all residents to write to CDC to put forward their personal views. KH noted that the PC has agreed to consult the village before reaching a decision.
7.2 GC noted that many residents wrote in to the previous round of consultation.
7.3 KH noted that the PC would normally include such material in the Village Green, but the publication timescale obviously precluded this.
7.4 It was agreed that a flyer be put round the village to deal with this. KH agreed to draft this and circulate to members for comment, to enable it to be distributed in time for Villagers to be able to send in their views to CDC before the consultation closes on 22 December 2006.
Action: KH
7.5 One member of the public noted that 6 sites had been put forward in Shenington despite it being a small village, and asked how this compared with other villages. It was believed that this was higher than was typical.
7.6 One member of the public did not believe that this was important as it may be that none of the sites are acceptable. He also noted that Government has said very recently that it may be possible for infill to be included in the total, and that as Shenington and Alkerton are on the edges of the county they may be seen as remote which would reduce the likelihood of development.
7.7 GC noted that Alkerton is defined as a Category 3 village in some recent correspondence on a planning appeal.
8. Date of Next Meeting
8.1 The next ordinary Parish Council meeting will be held on Wednesday 10th January 2007 in the Village Hall at 8:30 pm.
8.2 The meeting closed at 9:20 pm.