15 Jan 2008 - PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF SHENINGTON WITH ALKERTON PARISH COUNCIL ON WEDNESDAY 9th NOVEMBER 2008 AT 7.30PM
Present:
K Adams arrived late
M Coles
G Crabb
T Dowdeswell Vice Chairman
K Hainsworth Chairman
S Mitchell
1. Chairman’s Opening remarks
Keith Hainsworth welcomed members of the public and wished all a Happy New Year
2. Apologies
Received from Jan Walters
3. Declaration of Interest.
Keith Hainsworth declared an interest and will expand later in the meeting.
Tim Dowdeswell will do the same
4. Minutes of last meeting
Circulated by Margaret following the last meeting
Corrections: GC prefers to hand in comments on the night of th next meeting as the email is faulty in the village and she does not feel her emails are handled properly. There was concern raised about this way of doing the minutes as the idea was to have them ready for siging at the mext meeting, thus saving time.
Re: communications problems. There are internet communication problems and not just phone line problems to point out in letter to BT. Do we want to send out information circular.
GC pointed out that she was disappointed with TD and KH for not responding with an article for the Shenington Green as they are responsible for communication
GC also wanted to clarify how the offer to repair the War Memorial came about. And why it is not minuted. No-one else wanted it minuted at the last meeting.
GC also felt that the minutes about the Stone Pit is not comprehensive enough. Did not see why the document should be signed then, when it has been in front of the PC since January last year.
Matters Arising
How was the offer made re the War Memorial – but this is an agenda item, so will be dealt with then.
5. First Open Forum
A member of the public wanted to know how Courts become aware of the need for repairs to the War Memorial. To be discussed when the matter comes up in the agenda.
Another member of the public pointed out that the Banbury Guardian states there is an additional house in Long Acre. To be discussed as agenda item.
JW absence has been noted as she has missed the last three meetings. This matter is in hand as she has personal issues at home and cannot attend.
6. Financial Matters
TD had nothing to report as he has been ill and unable to make a report for the meeting. However two cheques have been raised since the last meeting both of which Keith Hainsworth signed
1. Stoy Hayward
2. Clerk
7. War memorial
It was explained how Courts became aware of the need to repair the War Memorial. At the one before last PC meeting, a member of public raised the issue of the war memorial needing repair work. TD put a sign up to warn of danger and he then looked for a repairer (stonemason). He thought that instead of burdening the public for payment he would raise the issue with Court Residential as he is friend of a director (Mark Hayward) and ask if they could make the repairs. The repairs have not as yet been carried out. GC had insisted that the work was stopped and a vote was then taken which was in favour in the work being carried out. Meanwhile William Perviss met the chair of the War Memorial Trust, who offered to give some advice/help should we need it. TD has been approached by members of public who support the repairs being carried out and were frustrated that the work was prevented being completed by the November 11th. The question of the Monitoring officer was raised. WC spoke to Jan Gossett and she advised the matter had to be voted on at a public meeting. GC would like to minute her disappointment with the behaviour of the PC in this matter.
8. Portfolio Report
Stone Pit
Nothing to report as yet. KH has been unable to get hold of the Nunneleys, but will continue to try.
Planning and Affordable |Housing
TD declared personal interest and agreed to leave the meeting. This is for Long Acre application for fifth house. KH also declared and interest. He considers himself a friend of Mark Hayward (Director of Court Ltd) and also of residents of Stocking Lane. He intends to vote on this matter.
Fifth house. This is for three storeys and five bedrooms. GC sent out an email stating she wished to object on the same basis as the other houses. This house would be close to the other houses and will leave a narrow gap, roughly the size of a five bar gate. There are people in the village who will be disappointed that CDC has not adhered to the 30metre rule.
There is a worry about the infrastructure with roads and sewage being a problem. Also these are much bigger houses than the three bedroom houses already in Stocking Lane. It was agreed that the PC need to talk about this application as one house and not in respect of what went before.
Also planning has gone missing to do with the alterations of the positioning of the garages. 21/12 CDC wrote to the PC about the repositioning of the garages. This is retrospective. Other parishes have not received mail either. The 21 day response requirement will start from when we receive the re-posted planning application. GC would like to point out that they avoided sustainable housing. This development is unfavourable to our village and situation. KH pointed out that CDC have ignored our comments in the past. There is the continued worry about traffic and narrow entrance to Stocking Lane. The PC was reminded that when the Robinsons applied for three houses in their front yard, there was such an insignificant increase in traffic that it would not count. Therefore each further development makes the next development less worrying to CDC. We should point this out to CDC in strong terms as it’s not good enough to say this is insignificant. KH is objecting to the planning application. GC’s letter (which may be too late) adds that the opportunity to have sustainable housing has been lost. Does Court own the land or does James Martindale still own it. It seems JM still owns the land – but this needs to be double checked.
Could request the conifer hedge be kept to help privacy. Also some planning for trees etc.had been included on the original planning. This should still be relevant now so that there is screening.
When we write to CDC, should we include the original house as a 6th house? SM does not agree that it includes 6 houses as one already existed. But objects to the planning application. GC thinks the house should still be pointed out. Need to point out 30% sustainable housing. Dividing land up and having different owners. GC feels that the one letter would maybe add to other letters being sent by residents and be stronger.
All voted against this planning application. Clerk to write a letter with GC regarding this matter.
Hillarys received planning for their new porch. But replaced first one and an amendment made.
Tysoe hill Conservatory
Rough Hill Access
Martindale received retrospective for the excavation of bank.
Courts Rough Hill Farm Extending Hen House. GC has no objection. MC wants to ensure it will be free range. GC likes to support local farmers in enterprise, especially as it brings employment.
Stoneholt – extension with pitch roof. North facing. Elevation will now be higher than the original roof- line. PC will continue in its objection. All agreed.
The Cranny – to block an existing doorway.
Badger on the Heath – received permission for lighting.
Wroxton Quarry – No objections as lighting is on timer and has shades.
Millington - New development. This site has been sold and this is the new owners application. There are concerns that this is a large house filling the space. There is already planning permission, but for a smaller house.
Oriel High – MC has no objections. JW has also seen the plans. No objections raised.
Stoneholt – Conservatory GC has yet to check the plans and will email members when she has done so.
Affordable Homes
GC/TD/SM to meet and put together a new draft questionnaire for the village, a shorter version. SM feels this would create a lot of unnecessary work as when the Parish Plan goes ahead there will be a survey which can be used for both purposes. They may also be too close together for the villagers to want to fill both in. One pack would be more beneficial and that would help identify the rural housing need.
SM gave a sample for GC to see and then it can be circulated to the other PC members.
Parish Plan
Cropredy has offered some help in talking to us about the Parish Plan, which they are completing. However GC would like a decision made tonight. TD objects to the Parish Plan as he feels it is too bureaucratic and would be a burden to this community with regards to money and costs. SM attended meeting and now feels it would be a good thing and would help influence the LDF and have some defensive value when the LDF looks for land. TD would be concerned that the Parish Plan did not reflect everybodys’ opinion. GC assured TD that the procedure would make it representative of the whole village. There is the grant of £1500, plus there may be more money available as the ORCC has not used all their funds. There would be a steering committee to run the parish plan and decide on what is spent. The PC would not run it. TD wants to know who will analyse the information. This is where the ORCC comes back into the picture. MC feels it may be difficult to get people across the community to be involved. Money is still the first step. The money is available, but we have to spend 10% as commitment from us. That is the only money we would have to pay out. TD – asks how do we quantify what we would want to spend. Initial costs would be putting out a survey. There is an application form on line at ORCC. SM feels that there should be a sub-committee before we go ahead with this project. At that point SM would support. As the PC cannot make a decision on a non-agenda item, KH will make an appointment with Paul Morley (Cropredy) anyway to talk about this (GC would like to attend) and then it can be put onto the next agenda. SM will speak to Mark Marot and Emma Philcox to confirm if they are interested in putting together a sub-committee. All agreed to go ahead with this at this stage. NB ORCC would monitor the whole plan.
LDF
GC and SM attended meeting. SM felt it was informative. He felt all villages had the same concerns and wanted the same things, namely small developments with smaller houses and some community housing. Problems would maybe arise with sewage, roads etc.
Minerals
Nothing to report
Transport
Signage – KA has looked at the amount of signs coming into village. One suggestion was integrating signs with the village name sign. We could have a new name sign and integrate speed limit and this would cost about £500 for both ends of village. This is all that can be integrated into the village name. Can’t integrate other signs, but we need to tidy up what we’ve got.
We also need to decide a speed limit. Highway Safety crew were open to the idea of adjusting the speed limit. They will spend some time in the village and look at speed. Will be measuring speed in the village at their own expense within the next month. We can then look at results and make decision. KA feels that 25mph would be correct speed for this village, but decision will be made after survey. A letter was sent to school regarding speed of parents. Member of public had raised the issue of reducing sped to 20mph with KH. Previously highways had said no, but now they would consider it. But it would be at the expense of the village and police would not enforce it.
SM raised the issue that continually braking can be more dangerous than speed.
All agreed for this survey to take place
Road maintenance – Mill Lane has been done quite well. They were meant to repair Pigmarket Lane, but couldn’t find it so did Mill Lane instead!. KH thinks we should get list of all works needed.
Meeting set up for Monday 21st Jan at 5pm at the office of Darren Mizen to talk strategy. SM to attend as well.
Stones on verges. No action taken yet as stones belonging to PC have not yet been moved. When they have then we can contact villagers.
GC pointed out that Highways have equipment for villagers to use for speed checking and the last time we used it there was no cost to us.
Karts
Nothing to report
Conservation and Restoration
Nothing to report
Recreation and Sports
Nothing to report
Liaison with villagers etc
Need to speak with the new editor of the Village Green. This is Carol Young.
9. Correspondence
The clerk was in receipt of a letter from Cherwell informing us that there had been a petition from the village concerning Conservation Area, calling on Cherwell to designate a Conservation Area. That CDC should challenge the PC decision to not have a Conversation Area. We have received a copy of the letter and petition and have been asked to comment.
We had a properly conducted ballot two years ago regarding this matter, and as that letter has not called on the PC to do anything, only comment, we challenge Cherwell to do what they think best.
GC copied to Linda Rand the four- page document that had been voted on by the village in 2006. Linda Rand then sent a three page letter back to GC in September 2007 saying the argument against the CA were ok, but that 8 points made against it were incorrect. GC to supply the PC with a copy of the letter sent to her on 27th September 2007. GC maintains she had approached Linda Rand in a private capacity and not as a Parish Councillor, this had not been mentioned to the PC. Linda Rand has now confirmed to GC that she will now do a Conservation Appraisal.
GC pointed out that the previous PC had all voted for a Conservation Area (apart from KH and Nick de Silva) The ballot was then nullified as the information given was incorrect. This is to be questioned.
If there are any defects in the previous ballot this will need to be addressed before we can go any further. The whole village was not informed or asked to sign the petition in question. TD wants to know the criteria used for who was asked to sign. How were they selected? GC could not answer this question but will get back to TD about it.
The original ballot was a secret ballot and had all the information they needed. It was felt his is an underhand way of getting points across. GC maintains the original ballot was flawed but will circulate the information and TD requests.
Reply to Cherwell should include:
A, we were not made aware of this
B, not aware of what information was circulated (written or verbalised) to get people to vote.
Although this is not presently a concern of this council, as it challenges Cherwells’ decision on how they decide Conservation Areas, the PC cannot ignore the villagers concerns.
SM feels that the original ballot may have included too much information.
10. AOB
Meeting one after next is the annual meeting. TD to do financial report draft for next meeting in readiness for the AGM
KH was invited to over 60s party and very much enjoyed it. He wanted to thank GC and her colleagues for organizing it.
GC - Would like final minute versions. She would also like the agenda to be emailed as well as hand delivered.
She also has concerns that emails are not checked on a daily basis by the clerk.
Still awaiting decisions from the Standards Board.
Set up meeting for the aftermath of OALC meeting. Bring up emails at this meeting. ASAP
GC – needs to arrange with Cherwell to have another vote for a Parish Councillor as Jan can no longer be a member as she has missed 3 meetings. Clerk to look up procedure and implement them. Asap. Letter of thanks to Jan.
Open Forum
A member of public raised concerns about the planning application for a fifth house on Long Acre. Planning was changed to fit in trees. Was on the plan previously but now disappeared. Also the new house is not in line with the other houses in Stocking Lane. Residents have written their own letter to be in by Friday 11th January.
End of No 4 should have a fence along the side.
Original plan for the chimneys was red brick, but is now blue engineering brick.
There was concern raised over the application to build garages that are already there.
We were reminded that the previous PC that received the original application and submitted a lengthy objection. CDC hadn’t dealt with some points of the objection. It was felt that the traffic figure were falsified and transposed. KH discovered the allegation repeated on a further application, that the traffic survey was flawed. But this did not stand up. It was mentioned that the peak was taken over two hours and should have been taken over 1 hour. Can this be added to the second report?
It was felt that this wouldn’t help as the higher the traffic figure was, the more help it would be to the planners as the percentage would be less.
Another member of public raised concerns that by accepting a freebie from Court Residential, would the PC have a responsibility to support further planning? KH felt tonight’s meeting proved otherwise.
Another member of public felt that due to the new application, it would be unwise to accept the offer of repairs to the memorial.
Referring back to Long Acre, one of the objections raised is lack of sewage. With 4 x 5 bedroom houses, each with maybe three bathrooms, they will be directly into the sewage system. Perhaps all future developments should be asked to have a septic tank. It was pointed out that the drains in Stocking Lane has blocked twice since the new residents moved in to Long Acre.
The next meeting will be held on 12th March 2008
The meeting ended at 9.40pm