Notes from the meeting with Charles Church

User Rating:  / 0

Parent Category: Parish Council

Category: Parish Council Minutes

Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 20:21

Published on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 16:54

Hits: 3540

Notes of the Meeting of Bramley Parish Council and ‘Remarkable’, representatives for Charles Church/Persimmon (informal notes rather than Minutes)

Meeting Notes

Parish Councillors present were:

Hereon referred to as PC: Chris Holland, Tony Durrant, Malcolm Bell, Janet Grieve,

Also present were:

Sarah Smart (clerk). Three Reps from Remarkable, acting for Charles Church hereon referred to as CC.

CC explained that they intend to submit an application for planning for the development at Minchens Lane and would not be waiting for the NDP process to be complete.

CC explained that they were preparing to consult with the community on 7th November 2013 and would have a drop-in session at the Clift Pavilions. PC asked why they were ‘rushing’ this consultation and the response was that November would likely see a better turn out than December and they were keen to carry out the consultation before Christmas. They said they did not have a set date in mind for submitting the planning application.

CC explained that they had considered a few options to consult on with varying stages of input from the community and Clift Meadow Trust, with some potential to incorporate space into the overall plans. PC explained that CMT were independent from the PC and any proposals to include parts of their land would have to be with their consent. It was noted that there would likely be legal complications regarding Trust agreements which would complicate any such proposals to incorporate their land into the overall scheme and that it would be unlikely that supporters of the CMT and living relatives of the Clift family who donated the facility to the community would agree to using any part of the CMT assets for such things as a car park for the station. It was explained that it would be more likely to achieve community and CMT approval if any CIL funded schemes and development were contained within the land CC have an option on.

CC proposed some options for CIL/S106 funds including a car park to service the station, and possible allotments which would be under the electricity pylons where other development would not be possible. They also explained that they are meeting with the GPs from the Clift Surgery and other stakeholders to discuss what impact they felt development would have on their facilities and services.

PC explained that it was very disappointing to see such proposals being pushed through at a pace which was not in line with the Local Plan and NDP. CC explained that the 5 year housing land supply was a similar consideration for the Borough Planners and was the reason other sites were being approved by DCLG ahead of the Local Plan adoption. Cllr Bell said the NDP group may be wasting their time and CC agreed that if the CC plans were approved it would offer less opportunity to the NDP group. PC suggested that the NDP was more than just site selection and other factors would still be contributed by the NDP group.

CC have already carried out extensive, formal and professional consultations which the NDP group have not had the opportunity yet to consider, and had evidence, or were gaining evidence, from tests including traffic counts, ecological surveys, noise surveys, landscape assessments, draining/flooding screening etc. which would all be needed to form part of the final site assessment evidence. They had also spoken with HCC Highways and Education departments to gain evidence of impact and need etc which would support their plans and application, but while they accepted that their forward movement would remove the site selection element of the neighbourhood plan, they were willing to work with the NDP steering group to discuss other matters where community input would be valuable.

CC were clear and unapologetic that their agenda and desire for the progression of the development at the site they have an option on, which had been under consideration for iro 10 years to date, would conflict with the desire of the PC to wait until the NDP process had taken its course. It was clear that they accepted and acknowledged the likelihood of their first plans to be rejected but that this being the case they would pursue an appeal which they felt, due to the 5 year housing land supply etc, would likely finally be approved. They acknowledged that they were pursuing an approach which would not be acceptable for the PC and that the two groups attending this meeting would likely be diametrically opposed.

PC asked CC if they would consider developing fewer than 200 homes on the Minchens Lane site so that the development would not be too dense, but they would not entertain this option as the site can accommodate 200 houses. CC explained that the development would not be similar to the recent development at German Road and acknowledges that this development appeared to be a town-style estate dropped into a village environment and was not in keeping.

There were extensive discussions about traffic movement in the village and surrounding areas including the A33. PC offered feedback which CC accepted as being useful for further considerations. CC explained that their proposals would be for less dense developments with more space between properties, more green areas with semi-mature trees where possible, and sufficient personal parking spaces.

There was a discussion about different types of affordable housing and PC explained that blocks of flats would constitute affordable housing but would not be in keeping. CC agreed that they would meet the 40% target in a way which was more suitable to the village. It was also explained that CC were not considering any 3 story buildings. CC agreed at PC request that they would forward details of any similar development, in size and density, so the PC could visit and get the ‘feel’ of the development.

There was further discussion about the likely direction of vehicles coming out of the development and PC suggested that while CC’s plan would be to discourage people from turning right out of the development, naturally people would try to avoid the level crossing and traffic would increase over Minchens Bridge and towards Holly Cross, particularly for those dropping children to school as this diversion was already being used for this reason.

There was discussion about a possible footbridge but it was noted that matters beyond funding and developer contributions affected this. This included finding a suitable location as the level crossing is surrounded by dwellings and other buildings, and the fact that level crossings can be an eyesore, and finally that Network Rail were electrifying the line with overhead electrification which would affect any considerations about a footbridge. There was a suggestion that a footbridge could be installed closer to Moat Close for people living on the new development in Minchens Lane to get to school without coming out of the estate, along the main road, and back towards the school. This however would be an expensive solution which would benefit those in the development and less so other people living in Bramley who want to proceed through from East to West and vice versa.

CC had considered a possible new medical centre as a potential use of developer contributions and PC explained that dentists etc had been requested by the community as well as an enhanced GP service. CC were meeting with Dr Fisher to discuss their views.

The CC reiterated that Bramley had been allocated 200 new homes in the Local Plan and the 5 year housing land supply was driving some planning decisions and they were confident that they would be successful in their applications. CC also felt that there were social and economic reasons that development was being encouraged. PC explained that they accepted there were certain realities which would need to be considered and worked around. PC asked for infrastructure to be delivered ahead of, or at an early stage of development, so that the current difficulties were not further exasperated by additional houses being built before the impacts were mitigated. CC explained that this would be down to other factors including HCC Highways etc rather than CC but that there was a schedule for releasing funds which allowed a certain percentage of properties to be sold before they were expected to provide funding, to aid income and cash flow relating to the site. CC said they were not un-amenable to discussing the infrastructure timetable with HCC.

Finally the potential timetable for development was explained including the screening options up until turning a turf and it was explained that this would not likely be before mid 2015.

They explained that they would promote the open session on 7^th November if that date was confirmed and PC offered to support this via a website entry etc as it is in the best interests of PC/NDP and community to have a good turn out to inform CC of early opinions/concerns etc.

It was agreed that CC would attend a second meeting with the NDP steering group to review survey results and further discuss their position.