Planning and Development Committee Minutes 4th March 2013

User Rating:  / 0

Parent Category: Planning and Development

Category: Planning Minutes and Reports

Last Updated on Saturday, 20 April 2013 13:49

Published on Friday, 15 March 2013 11:25

Written by Parish Clerk

Hits: 3264

Minutes of Planning and Development Committee meeting

held in the Committee Room of the Village Hall on 4^th March 2013, at 7.00pm.

Parish Councillors present were:

Richard Wood, Tony Durrant, Malcolm Bell, Janet Grieve

Also present were:

The Clerk, Borough Cllr. Chris Tomblin, Cllr. Chris Holland, 9 members of the public

ITEM          COMMENT                        

1.0             Apologies          

                  None

2.0             Minutes of the last meeting

                  Proposed Cllr. Bell, seconded Cllr. Wood

3.0             Planning applications review

                  No new applications received. For current status please see appendix.

4.0             Borough Council’s Planning and Infrastructure Cabinet recommendations update

              Cllr. Durrant explained that he had just returned from holiday and was catching up with the current stages of the process before this meeting and requested that other Parish Cllrs present make comment if his understanding was incomplete or incorrect. He explained that the Cabinet met at the Civic Offices on 28^th February to discuss the Draft Decision Notice, which made recommendations about development proposed in the LDF, but that no decision had been made at this meeting. This was originally expected to be a decision-making meeting, but given that this was not the case on the night, he explained that there was still plenty of opportunity for representations to be made to the Borough Council.

              He further explained that there was no longer an allocation for ‘Bramley Village’ within the settlement boundary, but that sites BAS107 and BAS122 were still to be put forward to the next stages. He reported that the Parish Council were invited to make a response to the draft decision notice and that the response does support the recommendations. It was noted that there had been an unexpected change in the recommendation, with the removal of the allocation of 200 new homes within the village, and that the Committee considered it appropriate to respond, to try to ensure that the allocation of 200 new homes stayed off the list. The Committee was given 7 days within which to respond, so there was not enough time to call a full parish council meeting. He explained that those present on the Parish Council’s Planning Committee had sought advice from both Borough Councillors, but as one was on holiday over this half term period only one was available to give their views to the Committee. The Committee met and agreed to respond within the required timeframe, and this would then be reviewed at the next full Parish Council meeting for ratification, with the option to resubmit any amendments if necessary.

              Bramley’s Committee representatives had previously attended the relevant meetings at the Borough Council, and had spoken on several occasions in defence of all of the sites affecting Bramley, including those in Cufaude Lane. However on this occasion, while they attended the meeting, they were not given an opportunity to address the Cabinet meeting, which was inundated by representations from other communities who had unexpectedly seen their allocation grow shortly before the Cabinet meeting. Borough Councillor Tomblin did speak at the Cabinet meeting and represented the view that Bramley were pleased to have the additional 200 allocation removed, and also spoke in defence of the Cufaude Lane sites which are still in the process.

              It was made clear that the Cabinet, who made a minor amendment to the Decision Notice before approving it, were simply allowing the next stages of the process to proceed. The next stage being that the infrastructure concerns voiced by residents in the areas where further development was proposed, including highways assessments, would be further investigated. Once this has been done, the P&I Committee will review the recommendations, which will then go back to the Cabinet, and finally to full council for approval to take the proposals to full public consultation, before being submitted to the Planning Inspector. It is clear that there is still a lot of work to do, and by approving the draft decision notice, the next stages can now commence.

5.0          Royal British Legion site

              Cllr. Durrant explained that as this will become a development site for 8-10 homes, he wished to reconfirm the desire that the charity should maximise its return on its assets and that the parish council would do their best to support the Royal British Legion. Cllr. Holland, who was present in the public seating, also updated the meeting stating that the site currently has a community label, but this would likely be removed during the planning process. He explained that the correct procedure would be for the RBL to approach the Borough’s Planning Officers regarding any development, and applications would then be sent to the Parish Council to comment as consultees. He explained that the Parish Council cannot afford to buy the site at market value for community use, but the RBL may offer the parish council a smaller parcel of the land for car parking, which may be able to support the village hall or football club. No formal offer has yet been made.

              In summary, Cllr. Durrant explained that the Parish Council is minded to support the British Legion.

              Public Interval

              There were several representations made from residents of Cufaude Lane regarding the Committee’s response to the Draft Decision Notice.

              Keith Olburn commented that while he understood Bramley Parish Council is just one brick in a very large wall, the Committee had previously defended the Cufaude Lane development sites in the SHLAA and asked what had changed. He also suggested that the proposed railway halt would never happen and that the Committee was agreeing to support a fantasy.

              Cllr. Durrant explained that the process has moved on from the site assessment stage, where Bramley PC along with others had repeatedly expressed concerns about the Cufaude Lane sites. He explained that our input was done, and that the process had moved forward. He explained that the Committee had not considered this a trade-off of 200 new homes Vs Cufaude Farm, but that despite repeated representations, the P&I Officers had decided to include the Cufaude Lane sites. He commented that the representations made by Bramley PC may or may not have influenced the removal of the further allocation of 200, but that the Cttee were not entirely happy. He explained that the Cttee felt that the response needed to be positive, in the face of further vigorous representations being made by Overton and Whitchurch for example, in order to move the process through to the next stage with this allocation remaining off the list.

              Pat Murphy asked who had compiled the response and suggested it should be removed from the website until the full parish council had ratified it. Cllr. Durrant explained that the Cttee had sought guidance from the Borough Councillors, one of whom was available to give his views, and that the Planning Committee, which was quorate although Cllr. Durrant was on holiday, had formulated the response.

              Ray Morton asked whether there was a time limit in which to respond.

              It was noted that there had been seven days (inclusive) between the paper being published and the Cabinet meeting.

              There was a further discussion about the viability of a new train halt at Chineham. There is no clear suggestion that this is possible, although it was thought that the electrification of the line may mean that a further stop could be managed. However, while the Parish Council will support this proposal, currently in the outline plans, as it would relieve additional parking problems within the village, it is with the understanding that it may not be possible, or if it is it may not been delivered in the short term.

              Catrina Stockwell suggested that the wording in the Cttees response to the Draft Decision Notice suggests that the PC supports the development at the Cufaude Lane sites.

              It was noted that this is still part of the site assessment process and that this is different to reviewing a planning application, where there is the ability to respond within clear guidelines. The PC had responded to the Planning Application submitted by Croudace for the Razor’s Farm Development and represented the concerns within the applicable rules.

              Rachel Price, the tenant at Cufaude Farm asked who will look after her interests. Cllr. Durrant explained that the Parish Council will do their best to support her but that its opportunities to do so were limited.

              It was noted that SARF were conducting a useful campaign against development in Cufaude Lane and there was a suggestion that the PC might wish to get more involved with them. It was noted that the PC had allowed their representatives to speak at various PC and Committee meetings, and displayed their posters in the parish council notice boards, but that the Parish Council as formal consultees through the process could not become part of a campaign.

              Geoff Hunt asked whether the Parish Council could show some maps explaining the difference between the ‘settlement boundary’ and the ‘historic parish boundary’. The Clerk explained that she had just obtained a licence to be able to publish maps online and in newsletters so would arrange this.

              Catrina Stockwell asked whether the NDP would be in place before such sites as the RBL site were put through the planning process. The Cttee would not be able to make assumptions about this, as they do not know how long it will take to achieve an approved NDP following a referendum, or when the planning application is likely to be submitted, but that it was unlikely.

              There is an allocation in the draft decision notice for ‘windfall’ sites across the Borough, and it is likely that smaller developments such as the potential development on the RBL site would count towards this allocation.

6.0         Neighbourhood Development Plan

Some of the residents from Cufaude Lane left the meeting before this agenda item began.

Cllr. Bell explained that there will be a ‘drop in’ session for members of the public to attend on Friday, to find out more about Neighbourhood Planning and to register their interest in getting involved.

It was explained that the whole of the parish boundary was being covered by the NDP. Cllr. Bell explained that an NDP can influence the type of housing that the parish believes to be appropriate, but cannot oppose the specific sites within the Local Plan so it cannot influence the number and density of houses on sites such as those proposed in Cufaude Lane.

It was noted that an approved NDP becomes Planning Policy – a legal position which is a material consideration for all planning applications within the Plan area.

The open session has been promoted on the PC website, facebook, twitter, in the parish notice boards and every home has received a leaflet. In addition there was information in the parish council newsletter, an insert reminding people of the date, and a large banner on Bramley Green. There has been an outstanding effort to promote this event, as if there are not enough interested participants the village cannot proceed with the project. It was noted that five very interested people could not proceed, as at least 10-15 representatives were required, so it was vital to establish a large enough working group.

7.0          Items for the next meeting

              The Local Plan would remain on the agendas until it was adopted, as will the NDP                            

There being no other business the meeting closed at 8.20pm.

Chairman ................................................................................................Date.................................