Hampton Lucy Parish Council

Transcription

1 (Minutes of meeting held on July 13 th 2016 in the village hall the meeting opened at 19.45pm after the public open session.) Present Councillors Heron, Schroeder, Whyman, Rayment and 8 members of the public. 1. Public open session (19.30pm) 1.1 A variety of items was discussed, namely the minutes of May 11 th referring to the village hall lease, the history of the village hall and whether the public would be able to question the county councillor. Parish Council Meeting (19.45pm) 2. Apologies for absence 2.1 Councillor Peter Richards. 3. To approve the minutes of the March 16 th, May 11 th and May 24 th meetings 3.1 Councillor Whyman proposed that the minutes of March 16 th be accepted. This was seconded by Councillor Heron and the minutes were signed by the Chair. 3.2 Councillor Whyman wanted the item about the Parish Council putting forward a business plan for the village hall included in the May 11 th minutes. As a result the minutes were not signed. 3.3 Councillor Whyman proposed that the minutes of May 24 th be accepted. This was seconded by Councillor Heron and the minutes were also signed by the Chair. 4. Matters arising from the minutes 4.1 The clerk did apply to Charles Church for a grant towards a plaque in the Spinney to commemorate Alan Scaife. He has not had a reply. 4.2 The clerk needs to contact Stratford District Council to confirm the regulations about informing neighbours about planning applications. 5. Sarah Brooke-Taylor (Housing Needs Survey) 5.1 Sarah explained that she worked for a housing charity that was sponsored by Stratford District Council. 5.2 The previous survey done in 2011 identified a need for 4 affordable homes but housing needs surveys only have a shelf life of 5 years or so. 5.3 There is a need for affordable homes in this area because rents are so expensive, the priority being people who have a local connection. Affordable housing in this case means a need rather than an aspiration. 5.4 The 2011 is now out of date but a new survey would follow the same pattern. 5.5 Councillor Rayment asked what % actually filled out such a questionnaire, the answer being approx. 32%. For every 100 households, the need for affordable housing is roughly Councillor Whyman asked about the success rate or outcomes of such surveys. Councillor Schroeder pointed out that Charles Church were supposed to have provided 4 affordable homes and wanted to know how these were allocated, the answer being that Stratford District Council would have done this. 5.7 Councillor Whyman said that some residents who were interested were told by the District Council to join the waiting list and Councillor Schroeder pointed out that we don t actually know which members of the parish are on the waiting list. 5.8 Councillor Schroeder reminded the meeting that we are already in the middle of the neighbourhood planning process but Sarah Brooke-Taylor said that any questionnaires should go out in September not August because the school holidays might mean that some people would not be able to fill them in.

2 5.9 Councillor Schroeder asked if the neighbourhood plan questionnaire should go out at the same time as the housing needs survey and it was confirmed that this would actually result in a higher rate of return. Sarah Brooke-Taylor said that Page 1 of the survey could be used for the neighbourhood plan questionnaire to avoid duplication. 6. District Councillor Peter Richards 6.1 Absent. 7. County Councillor Danny Kendall 7.1 Absent. 8. Hampton Manor update, restoration of hedges and verge; fencing at Stratford Road 8.1 Councillor Schroeder reminded the meeting that hedges and verges should be re-instated and the road surface at the junction completed. Apparently, the new site manager said that it was nothing to do with him but that Charles Church would complete the work. Current Charles Church staff will be off the site by the end of August. 8.2 It was resolved that: The clerk write to District Councillor Peter Richards to ensure that the planning consent requirements are adhered to. 8.3 Councillor Schroeder said that the cost of maintaining the drainage and the public open spaces will be the responsibility of the properties. 8.4 It was resolved that: The clerk find out whether any replacement hedge would still be maintained by the county highways. 8.5 Councillor Whyman reported that the district council enforcement officer has asked for the excessive fence along Stratford Road to be lowered by 2 metres. 8.6 It was resolved that: The clerk confirms that the fence will be lowered by 2 metres. 9. Correspondence (traffic speeding along Snitterfield Street 9.1 County Councillor Kendall has promised to consider a traffic detection system in the village. 9.2 It was resolved that: Councillor Heron contacts Councillor Kendall again about traffic speeds in the village. 9.3 Councillor Whyman suggested that Highways could put a SLOW sign on the bend before Snitterfield Street. 9.4 It was resolved that: The clerk writes to Sarah Hillcox confirming the Parish Council s discussion. 10. Neighbourhood Plan report (see Appendix 1) 10.1 Kate Evans went through the report (see Appendix 1) Councillor Whyman wanted to know who was on the neighbourhood plan committee and Councillor Schroeder reminded the meeting that the committee needed another member of the parish council on it Councillor Whyman wanted to know why the website had not been updated, the reply being that the neighbourhood plan would soon be having its own dedicated site Councillor Schroeder wanted to know when this new site would be up and running, the reply being within the next month Councillor Schroeder suggested that that the new site should be available before the questionnaire is filled out A member of the public wanted to know if the four proposed Valefresco houses would be part of the 7 extra houses required for the core strategy, the reply being yes but the application may be easier once the neighbourhood plan is in place. 11. Playing Field Repairs 11.1 The payment for Playing Field Repairs of was duly authorised.

3 12. Annual audit of accounts and governance statement The annual audit of the 2016 accounts and Annual Governance Statement for 2016 were duly signed by the Chair and clerk. 13. Transparency rules 13.1 The clerk confirmed that the Annual audit and governance statement would go on the Hampton Lucy website immediately, together with the budget details, risk assessment, details of councillor responsibilities, asset register and bank reconciliation. 14. Planning applications 14.1 Applications 15/03650/FUL (Old Pastures Farm), 16/01121/LBC (Hampton Lucy House), 16/02064/TREE (Hampton Lucy Bridge), 16/01769/LBC (Tudor Cottage) and 16/01926/HHPA (24, The Spinney) were discussed Councillor Schroeder pointed out that HHPA 16/01926 was a permitted development and consequently, there was little that the parish council could do, especially as it was not consulted. 15. Financial information (July 1 st ) 15.1 This was for information and included savings of (including Science Fund 175, Defibrillator , Neighbourhood Plan ), Current account and Playing Field account This made a total budget of 16, Exchange of information with public 16.1 A member of the public queried the HHPA conservatory application because the bungalow was already high and it would be too high and too close to local residents. Councillor Schroeder pointed out that it seemed high because of the possible flooding risk The car parking at the Mercedes garage is again causing difficulty. Councillor Schroeder pointed out that the site will now be part of a county council casualty reduction scheme. Hampton Lucy was not informed because the junction is not in the parish Councillor Schroeder reminded the meeting of the S106 grant of 6210 for Youth / Adult provision and asked for it to be put on the next agenda It was resolved that: The clerk puts S106 funding on the next agenda Councillor Heron said that there was no update on the footballers using the playing field A member of the public asked if the parish council could contribute towards the Youth Club. Council Schroeder said that there needed to be a detailed proposal and that S106 funding could be used Another member of the public had photographed a lorry on the bridge but this was two weeks ago. Councillor Schroeder suggested that he send the evidence to clerk for action A member of the public queried the size of the playing field budget again and the rationale behind deciding on 1000 annually for maintenance. Councillor Schroeder explained that there was no record of detailed maintenance on this scale and that hopefully 1000 per annum would be effective The meeting was reminded by a previous clerk that in the past, any surpluses had been used to fund maintenance The clerk requested authorisation for payment of the invoice for the commemorative plaque for Alan Scaife. Donations of 105 have been received and the balance will be paid by the family. John Dunkerton (July 22nd 2016) Meeting closed at 21.11pm Dates of next meetings for 2016: September 14 th, and November 9 th.

4 Appendix 1 Neighbourhood Plan Hampton Lucy Parish Council The Localism Act 2011 included legislation for local communities to produce a Neighbourhood Development Plan which is a new grass roots tier for the planning system, which, when adopted will become a legal document carrying significant weight when planning decisions are made. Hampton Lucy has been designated a Category 4 Local Service Village because of our limited facilities in the village based on whether a village has a school, a shop etc. This requires us to have no more than 8% of the 400 homes in the parish which is a total of 32 houses. Following the Charles Church development we are expected to provide a further 7 houses between now and To ensure that it becomes a legal planning requirement, it s essential that it is community led, so the Parish Council asked for volunteers from the community to establish a steering group to raise awareness and to get the community on board. We initially sent out a questionnaire to collect information and our findings were:- 39% felt that there should be no new houses at all. 41% thought that the village needed a maximum of 10 houses. The majority of people wanted houses with 2 to 3 bedrooms, in traditional styles, in keeping with the village architecture and not a typical suburban estate. There was a demand for Shared Ownership / Local Occupancy and First Time Buyer homes. The majority also wanted new houses scattered around the village rather than in one place. Charles Church then came into place ignoring all of these findings because we had no way of enforcing this and this is why the NP is so important, the information that we are currently gathering will be taken seriously. Evidence We are currently in the preparation stages of the plan; this is a long process which involves collecting as much data as we can from the residents in the parish to use as evidence to form the policies. We are expected to show evidence that we have achieved this through questionnaires, open days and mood cards:- We have completed 2 questionnaires and the final much more complex one is going to print. The NP gives us the chance to be specific not only on the location of new houses but also their size, design and height. We can also create policies on much more than just housing, such as the protection of important community facilities like the village hall, pub, views and green spaces, conservation, transport and the promotion of new facilities like cycling routes and renewable energy. We also delivered a business questionnaire and interviewed businesses in the parish. The previous open day included a map exercise to establish where residents thought the future housing sites should be located and the 8 potential sites were established. Meanwhile we have employed a planning consultant who independently and impartially assesses the sites for their suitability, and their availability. This will include sustainability appraisals and strategic environmental assessments with Severn Trent, National Grid, Warwickshire County Council (WCC), Highways and SDC. The point of the exercise is to marry up the views of the residents and the views of the consultant to find the best possible locations for the remaining 7 houses that we are expected to accept. It has also been recommended that we also have a reserve site in case the core strategy changes. Writing the Plan (Policies) The final questionnaire will be delivered very soon and the results will be deciphered and assessed by an independent consultant, we will then be expected to write policies based on a strong evidence base and these policies will form the draft plan and proposals, identifying any key issues, visions and objectives. The policies will be displayed in a final open day for public consultation allowing residents to either accept or reject them. Once the plan has been written we must include a formal 6 week consultation period to publicise the draft plan and then consider any responses. We are currently in the process of having a website built which will publicise the plan to everyone who lives, works or carries out business in the parish and it will also be an important evidence base for the Examiner to use. Independent Check We then submit the draft plan to SDC with all of the supporting evidence. SDC then publicise the proposals for a further 6 weeks and invites comment. After which the Draft Neighbourhood Plan would be submitted to examination. An Independent examiner is appointed and paid for by SDC and the appointment must be agreed with the Parish Council based on a specific criteria.

5 Community Referendum The SDC will then publish the examiner s report and if the examination is successful, then a referendum will be held (Yes another one so soon) and the Parish will have the opportunity to vote on the Plan. If 51% vote in favour of the Plan it will be adopted, SDC will then publish it s decision to make the plan and we must make the final plan available for inspection for a further 6 weeks whereupon it will form part of the statutory development plan for the area and along with adopted Local Plan it will then provide basis any planning applications and appeals. It is a long process and most plans take well over two years to produce. Funding We have received grants from locality which have allowed us to pay for the independent Site Assessment Consultant, a Questionnaire Assessment Consultant and a Website Designer. If you would like to get involved with the writing of policies your input would be greatly appreciated, we need manpower and skills to write these policies This is an unprecedented opportunity to make our voice heard through the production of a binding set of planning policies, giving us the control over which sites are allocated and what they should look like. It helps us to deliver real, tangible, benefits for our area such as homes for local people and the protection of open spaces for future generations. It can also facilitate community cohesion through tackling local issues and aspirations which may otherwise be overlooked by SDC. How it works from now Deliver the final questionnaire and analyse the findings Writing the Plan (policies) Independent check Community referendum Plan is adopted Kate Evans (Neighbourhood Plan Group)