Bramley Parish Council Minutes 19th September 2011

User Rating:  / 0

Parent Category: Parish Council

Category: Parish Council Minutes

Last Updated on Saturday, 20 April 2013 13:49

Published on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 14:51

Hits: 4435

Minutes of Bramley Parish Council
held in the Village Hall on 19^th September 2011, at 7.30pm.

Parish Councillors present were:

John Ferguson (Chair), Claire Penfold, Dalton Hopkins, Philip McCorry, Janice Spalding, Allan Douglas, Chris Holland

Also present were:

The Clerk, Borough Cllr. Rhydian Vaughan, Borough Cllr. Ranil Jayawardena, County Cllr. Keith Chapman,

PC Geoff Fermor-Dunman, PC Peter Coe, 16 members of the public

Due to the high level of public comment, with more open discussion than would be usual, the running order did not strictly follow the agenda. The responses have been minuted under the correct subject heading. While there is some change to the order, this does not alter the integrity of the minutes.

ITEM         COMMENT                                                                                                           ACTION

1.0             Apologies

Richard Wood, Hugh Tottenham

2.0             Minutes of the last meeting

Proposed Cllr. Spalding, seconded Cllr. Douglas.

3.0             Matters arising

Cllr. McCorry commented that the Bramley Stone was still flattened and had not been sorted since the last meeting. Cllr. Ferguson confirmed that a contractor had quoted to repair the Stone and to lay some flagstones around the base to ensure the mowers didn’t need to get too close.

JF

4.0 Finance

All ok.

4.i              Accounts for Payment

Approved, proposed Cllr. Holland, seconded Cllr. Douglas

5.0 Planning

See appendix for applications

LDF: On the matter of planning, the Borough Councillors were invited to update the Parish Council and the public on recent reports about local housing numbers under the Local Development Framework. Cllr. Jayawardena replied and explained that he and Cllr. Vaughan came before residents at a special meeting in December 2010 to introduce the process for the next couple of years during which he stressed the importance of the housing consultation which was delivered to each household.

He explained that Cllr. Vaughan and he were working to produce the best deal for Bramley and Sherfield, but that he must reiterate, as he and Cllr. Vaughan did last December, that saying 'no more development ever' is not an option, as development would then be imposed by the planning inspector - Bramley would experience the implications of an imposed development such as German Road again, which was rejected by the Parish and Borough councils, decisions that were over-turned by the then Government.

The sites allocated in the public paper were allocated by Officers of the Council. Borough Councillors are elected to represent us at various committees and panels where these papers are reviewed. Cllr. Rhydian Vaughan is a member of the committee that will scrutinise the papers to understand what they mean and whether they should be supported as an initial starting point, following which there will be full, open and public consultations. The Planning Inspector will hold public hearings and the public can make representations. The paper laid out at present cannot become the definitive LDF until the whole process of consultation has been completed.

The Borough Council have managed to get the number of houses to be built a year down to 594 houses a year, which has had a huge effect on reducing the number of houses required on greenfield sites; Bramley is only being asked to contribute around 12 houses per year towards this figure - totalling 200 over the whole LDF period through to 2027. 
Contrary to the SHLAA, which identified specific sites in Bramley, Cllr. Jayawardena and Cllr. Vaughan have made sound planning arguments to ensure no sites were allocated in the village. Significant development all at once often leads to an infrastructure deficit; organic growth of around 12 houses a year should stop this being the case. 
It was noted that many young people cannot afford to buy houses in Bramley and instead move to Basingstoke or elsewhere, which is not right. We have to get the right mix of housing in our village, and Borough Councillors have championed local decision-making so it has been specifically detailed that the type, location, size etc will be up to the Parish Council, as the representatives of the people of Bramley, to decide. The Neighbourhood Development Plan process (separate from the Parish Plan) also allows the community to decide when/where/what we need in the village, taking into account the existing infrastructure deficit in Bramley.

It was also important to note that Cufaude Farm is currently tagged and, therefore, protected as a 'reserve site', so it would only be developed in the worst case, if other sites cannot be developed - and only then if there is a shortfall. Taking into account ‘windfall’ sites such as those regenerated and owned by housing associations, the need to develop greenfield sites is further reduced. The greatest threat to greenfield sites like Cufaude Farm is not having an LDF in place as soon as possible - without the LDF in place, Cufaude Farm doesn't have any 'reserve' protection.

Cllr. Ferguson thanked Cllrs. Vaughan and Jayawardena for all that they do for Bramley, stating that before the German Road development was built, ministers in Whitehall who didn’t know Bramley enforced development, and he hopes that will never happen again.

Application number BDB/74545 (The Vicarage) was then discussed as Cllr. Penfold understood the application had been withdrawn/refused, but has now been granted by the Borough Council. She felt that this was a case of garden-snatching which was now outlawed, and Cllr. Ferguson concurred that he was surprised it was granted without conditions.

Cllr. McCorry suggested this example makes a mockery out of Cllr. Jayawardena’s comments that PCs have an important role in deciding development, to which Cllr. Jayawardena explained that he is talking about housing in the future which does not preclude private land owners’ applications under the current framework. He explained that the settlement policy boundary is something that the PC will have to consider, as it could be tighter still.

6.0             Borough Councillor Report

Travellers: Cllr. Vaughan explained that around 3 months ago, Malcolm Bell from Lane End asked how we could protect Bramley Green from the occurrence of travellers experienced by Sherfield. Cllr. Vaughan took this query to the Stratfield Saye Estate Office, who said it was not high on their agenda. Questions had been raised by the public asking why Bramley PC are responsible for mowing the Green if it was owned by the Duke’s Estate, and it was explained that the land is being loaned to the village with public access, and that under the agreement Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council would provide funds to have it mowed.

Cllr. Vaughan referenced discussions on the Google Group and explained that both the Parish and the Borough Council know most things before the public does, and that they should be trusted to manage situations. It was noted that there were processes to follow and that the perpetrators have certain rights, but that the Estate had issued an Eviction Order and the travellers had until 10am the following morning to vacate. He said he was aware that these issues raise emotions.

It was explained that the Estate Office would put in protection measures – that they will do what we want them to do. He went on to comment that you have to be careful what you wish for as we do not want to impede dog walkers, mowers etc from accessing the Green. If protection measures are to be put into place they need to be completely defensible, and various options will be considered. He explained that the travellers know every way to get onto land and that we shall learn from them when considering prevention measures.

The public were given an opportunity to raise their concerns and there were open discussions about the behaviour of the travellers and the nuisance issues that they were creating, including noise pollution, dog fouling, costs/liability for making good the area once they had been evicted etc. The following was confirmed: Their vehicles were police checked and they are taxed and insured. With regards to dog fouling, it is almost impossible for the police to confirm an individual owner for the dogs so they cannot be issued with fines. The Estate would make good any damage caused by the travellers. It was noted that the area was a conservation area which includes ambient smells, noises etc, and it was explained that this would not override private ownership. If the landowners were not taking action they could be enforced to do so, but we were already aware that the Estate was doing all they could do remove the problem.

Police Report: Community Speedwatch: PCSO Peter Coe and Geoff Furmer-Dunman gave a talk about the CSW scheme which has been run by various councils for some years, but is new to Hampshire. This was a long talk during which the public participated, and can be summarised as follows:

Three volunteers are required at the roadside with a speed indicator device, with one of the volunteers taking the details of the speeding vehicle. Data is input onto a central database which is sent overnight to the Police National Computer, whereby a letter is sent to the registered keeper. This scheme is about education rather than enforcement and won’t take the place of traditional road policing, but will compliment it. The scheme is very simple once up and running but finding keen volunteers is the key to the success of the scheme. Anyone can suggest a road to be monitored, providing the speed limit is under 30mph, occasionally 40mph will be considered. The Parish Council would be required to purchase the equipment at an estimated cost of £1,870 per unit. Cllr. Vaughan explained that there may be concerns about safety – what is to stop an irate driver causing trouble. PCSO Coe said that although there is nothing to stop this, it was a very, very rare occurrence locally. There would be 3 volunteers at any time and for the first few months as PCSO would be with them. There would be information in the local press so that people would be aware of the scheme and the fact that it is for education not enforcement. A letter is enough of a deterrent for many people, but if offenders were persistent they would be told that there would be possible further police action and perhaps a home visit. If equipment was purchased it could be shared with another parish, and could be stored at Tadley Police Station where vetted volunteers would attend to input the data collected, or could be stored in a local council building. Training would be provided free, and volunteers would be police checked, with a level 2 volunteer having access to the police station.

Public Comments

See appendix

8.0             Transport, Highways and Parking

Cllr. Chapman reported on some issues regarding the adoption of the highways on the German Road development, explaining that the developers were granted planning permission by the House of Commons, without pre-conditions. Usually there would be a S38 agreement in place which means the developers have to bring the roads up to an adoptable standard before Highways will adopt them. HCC does not adopt roads if this document is not in place, but they are in talks with the developer to resolve this. Without the S38 agreement the developers are not under legal obligation to provide adoptable standards. Without adoption Taylor Wimpey would be obliged to maintain the roads, and they are focussed on satisfying the council that they will bring the roads to an adoptable standard. It was also noted that there were some historic issues concerning the sewers towards Campbell Road which also need to be resolved.

9.0 Environmental Matters

Allotments: Cllr. Jayawardena was invited to provide an update, and he explained that there is a possible site in Bramley, adjacent to Bullsdown Farm, part of which could be used for allotments. Various options would be scoped as to whether the site would be large/small with a lot/few plots and there would be a formal planning process to be approved if the PC wished to proceed. There is a clear demand for allotments in Bramley and there is a long waiting list. Cllr. Penfold had investigated the land for sale at Tudor Farm but this was now under offer, and the land owners were not keen to sell any part of the land to the Parish Council, as they felt an allotment site would devalue their land. Cllr. Penfold explained that if the site at Bullsdown could be used, this would only give us slightly more than we currently have, but Cllr. Jayawardena explained that this site was the only site which could currently be made available if the PC wanted it. It was noted that costs for setup would have to be established and a public consultation carried out before this site could be decided on.

Longbridge Road: Cathy Baker passed a copy of a letter to the PC explaining that the land at Longbridge Road was now officially registered as Village Green. She explained that the landowner can no longer appeal against this decision as the deadline had passed. There was confusion about why the landowner was able to apply for an extension to the time limit for his previously approved planning application to develop the site, as it was felt that he would not be able to develop the site now it was confirmed Village Green. She challenged Cllr. Ferguson as to why the Parish Council did not object to the application to extend the time limit, and he confirmed that his interpretation was that a form of appeal was anticipated and whether or not the PC agreed, he felt that the landowners deserved their right to apply. There is still some confusion about how the Village Green status on privately owned land can be fully recognised.

10.0           Parish Plan Update

Cllr. Penfold explained that the final draft of the questionnaire is ready, having received help from Sarah Shepherd at BDBC with the final language. There is to be another meeting in October. The plan is to divide the village into two zones and knock on every door to engage householders. There will be a dry-run to ensure the questions are understandable and easy to answer.

11.0 Representative Reports

Cllr. Holland attended the recent BDAPTC meeting which had a wide ranging agenda, including discussion about the community speed watch scheme. It was noted that as Cllr. Penfold was committed with the Parish Plan and the allotments project, Cllr. Holland would take over as representative for these meetings.

The ownership of tree on the corner of Minchens lane which seems to be diseased is still in question, with Borough and County both saying they do not own it. It is not owned by the Clift Trust. HCC have agreed to monitor it. It was also noted that the diseased tree by the sub-station had been removed.

12.0 Village Diamond Jubilee Celebration: Cllr. Spalding updated on some of the planned events including ferret racing, a funfair, and confirmed along with Cllr. Vaughan that a Chinook is planned to be available on the day, depending on operational requirements. Cllr. Ferguson pointed out that the hedge around Clift Meadow needs cutting and it was confirmed that this was in hand.

13.0           Correspondence/Consultations

Nothing of particular note

14.0           Items for the next meeting

The Autumn/Winter newsletter is due shortly, Councillors were requested to provide articles/information by the next meeting, including a brief personal profile and a photo, which could then be used on the website so that residents can be more familiar with their councillors.

Before the meeting ended, Cllr. Ferguson came back to the Community Feasibility Study update, which had been missed among earlier discussions. He explained that the architect had attended a Parish Plan meeting and that he was keen to work with them also. Cllr. Ferguson would produce some information for the next newsletter to explain what is going on.

There being no other business the meeting closed at 9.25pm.

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

Appendix - Public Comments

Ray Morton spoke to explain that he felt his comments at the last meeting had not been fully minuted.

Tony Durant commented that the wooden posts at the traffic calming points near Strawberry Fields had been damaged for some time. Cllr. Ferguson explained that HCC Highways had been notified of this, along with some other projects, and that there was a meeting 3 weeks ago to discuss this. County Cllr. Keith Chapman agreed to chase Highways on the matters outstanding, which also included the poor road surface near the level crossing.

Anthony Peagan asked about the closure of the A33. Cllr, Chapman explained that there were diversions in place, and that they can only divert traffic down the same standard of highway, so they were diverting through Hook and Reading, but that local people would most likely make their own way using local knowledge of alternative routes. It was explained that the A33 was going to collapse, and that radical repairs were required, sometimes going down to 4ft deep, and it was not just a cosmetic resurfacing. He explained that the work will take place overnight and at weekends, but that they would get the pain over with as soon as possible. It is hoped that normal traffic will follow the proper diversion routes.

Cllr. Ferguson returned to a previous discussion about the lighting on the Cinder Track, and Cllr. McCorry suggested that all residents need to know what the proposals are. Cllr. Ferguson said he would be meeting Jo Murphy and others to co-ordinate this, and the resurfacing of the end of the cinder track near the garage, which has been put out to tender.

It was confirmed that the water board have finished their part of the work in Bramley Lane, and that the Gas Board would be attending the site to do their part. It was agreed that the PC were being kept in touch by the project managers, but that this work was essential as the current culvert was not coping and nearby houses had flooded in the past. Cllr. Penfold asked about the state of the green area being left behind by the contractors and it was felt that they would be responsible for reinstating the grassed area.

5.0             Planning Applications