Bramley Parish Council Minutes 20th June 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 14:52

Hits: 4517

Minutes of Bramley Parish Council
held in the Village Hall on 20^th June 2011, at 7.30pm.

Parish Councillors present were:

Richard Wood, Philip McCorry, Claire Penfold, Janice Spalding, Allan Douglas, Hugh Tottenham, Cllr. Holland

Also present were:

The Clerk, Borough Cllr. Rhydian Vaughan, Rev. John Lenton, 3 members of the public

1.0             Apologies

County Cllr. Chapman, Borough Cllr. Jayawardena, Cllr. Hopkins, WPC Mandy Jewell, Cllr. Ferguson(Cllr. Wood stood in as Chairman for this meeting)

2.0             Minutes of the last meeting

It was noted that the minutes made reference to an appendix for the report from the Village Hall that was made to the PC at the last meeting, but this had not been available for inclusion and would be made available at a later date.

Proposed Cllr. Spalding, seconded Cllr. Douglas.

3.0             Matters arising

Cllr. McCorry asked whether the proposed obstruction had been put in place at Lane End, and highlighted that this issue had been outstanding for 2 months now. Cllr. Wood explained that he had attended a site meeting with Mike Townsend, Cllr. Vaughan, WPC Jewell and a representative from Hampshire County Council. He explained that they had discussed putting two bollards in place, 1 each side of the track. He also explained how the muddy bank needed to be protected from vehicles driving around the bollards and commented that 3 concrete drainage tubes might be used. He confirmed that this was not yet done, and that he had been to inspect the area and found track marks on the muddy bank where cars had used the route and that some temporary barriers had been removed by residents.

Due to bereavement the usual contact from the developers had been unable to attend the meeting but had just returned to work and Cllr. Wood intends to contact him again as a matter of urgency. Cllr. McCorry said he was concerned that another month would go by without getting it done.

4.0 Finance

All ok.

4.i              Accounts for Payment

Approved, proposed Cllr. Penfold, seconded Cllr. Douglas

4.ii             Annual Return

Cllr. Wood reported that all the Cllrs. had received a copy of the end of year accounts and cash book, and that Cllr. Tottenham had received a full copy of the Annual Return, with time to check the content. Cllr. Tottenham explained that he had found nothing to make him feel uncomfortable about the Parish Council approving the Annual Return.

Cllr. Holland asked about an item on the current years’ budget and asked whether the £6,000 earmarked for the Granary repairs was a one-off cost or an annual cost. Cllr. Wood explained that this was hoped to be a one-off cost. It was agreed that the Council would approach English Heritage to check whether a grant was available before we spend the money set aside for the essential repairs, although it was not expected that we would be able to obtain all of the costs, if any.

Cllr. Wood asked whether it would be possible to approve the Annual Return. Cllr. Tottenham requested that the audit process be explained for those who were not familiar, and the Clerk explained that having approved the figures, the annual return and all the supporting documents would be sent to the internal auditor. Following this, once all is complete and agreed, the Annual Return is submitted to the Audit Commission.

Proposed Cllr. Tottenham, seconded Cllr. Holland.

4.iii Register of Assets

It was noted that as the clerk had moved home/office address, the register of Assets needed to be updated to show where some of the equipment was being stored. A copy was circulated and would be kept on file.

5.0 Planning

Cllr. Wood reported that on behalf of the Parish Council he had attended the site meeting for the new build development at Tudor Farm. He explained that on sight of the original plans, 3 of the Parish Councillors had objected on the basis that the footprint was too close to the neighbouring property. On the site visit the architect had pegged posts into the ground to show both the original site plan and the amended plan, which demonstrated that the property would not be so close to the neighbouring property. Cllr. Wood explained that Borough Cllr. Ranil Jayawardena had requested the site visit and that looking at the new plan, the changes seemed quite sensible, and he felt that the Borough Council’s opinion on the application was acceptable. He said he was very impressed with the attitude of the potential owners and that the design of the property was eco-friendly and should be encouraged.

It was noted that Springfield Cottage was shown on the agenda as being refused. Cllr. Tottenham asked the clerk to clarify the details of this application. This would be circulated after the meeting as the information had not been taken to the meeting.

6.0             Police Report

Cllr. Vaughan explained that WPC Mandy Jewell attends Parish Council meetings at her various locations on a rota basis and unfortunately cannot attend each Parish every month. He explained that if she were unable to attend, it was not through lack of interest, but that she was most likely at another meeting. Cllr. Holland suggested he could find out from Mandy Jewell how she can best meet all her responsibilities and ask whether PC Geoff Fermor-Dunman might be able to attend if she was unavailable. 

Borough Councillor Report

Cllr. Vaughan said that things have been fairly quiet. He explained that the election results were available on the website, and that there was not much change. He also explained that he had spoken with Mike Townsend regarding the planned meeting about the German Road development and was ensured it would be imminent.

Cllr. Vaughan spoke about a meeting which had taken place at the Civic Offices regarding the Local Development Framework (LDF) looking at the number of houses. It is yet to be seen how the numbers translate compared to the SHLAA, but there will likely be some housing numbers relating to Bramley. He commented that we cannot simply say that there will be no more housing in Bramley, but we can try to influence this so that there is the right type of housing in the right place.

He also explained that compulsory water meters were on the way, possibly next year. He said that we need to take seriously that water is a dwindling resource and there is no reason why people should pay more – it was a matter of water education. As a point of interest he stated that many households with single people/couples use more water than families. It was noted that meters have been installed in housing built since 1990, but that some older properties were still not metered.

Cllr. McCorry asked what progress was being made about the yellow lines for Coopers Lane, and spoke of the arrogance of people parking and dumping cars wherever they can to use the station. Cllr. Vaughan explained that the yellow lines are not yet agreed but he will be speaking to the new contact at HCC. He explained that he hoped to report something more conclusive next month. Various schemes are in the process of being discussed including restricting the hours, so that commuters would not be able to leave their cars in residential areas for the day.

Cllr. Tottenham asked how successful the parking scheme is at the pub car park. It was noted that only people with a season ticket can apply for a permit, and that not all train users are in possession of a season ticket. It was agreed that we would try to publicise this scheme again.

7.0             Transport Highways and Parking

Cllr. McCorry explained that since the last meeting, there had been several comments on the Google group about the study into a footbridge over the railway line. It was noted that in line with public requests, the order of the meeting was altered so that an update could be provided before the public comments section of the meeting. He noted that it was frustrating that those people who made comments on the Google group decided not to attend the meeting but he proceeding to provide the information they had requested. He also commented that a newspaper article in the Gazette gave the impression that the public had been consulted over the issue, which had not taken place to date, and so he had been approached by people asking why they had not been spoken with.

He read a letter from Tom Robison HCC regarding the feasibility study, as he had requested an update: See Appendix

He also explained that there had been a count of the number of pedestrians crossing the railway between 7am-7pm going back to 2009. Cllr. McCorry sampled a count the week before the PC meeting at between 3pm-4pm, during which time he counted 100 people. He expressed some of the views of the villagers, including those who would like a footbridge as they say they miss their train, and those who do not want a ‘monstrosity’ in the village. He also explained that people nearby were very upset.

Cllr. Wood explained that one of the big problems to overcome would be where you could put a footbridge, as with neighbouring properties it would be above their roof level. It was commented that the footbridge at Mortimer was more accepted as it was not in the centre of a village. He explained that the Parish Council had been asked to look into the matter and ascertain whether it was possible, and Cllr. Penfold confirmed that the issue was included in the Parish Plan’s questionnaire so there would be some further feedback available on the public opinion. It was confirmed that the Parish Council were so far not incurring any costs. Cllr. Holland asked whether the survey was looking at a range of locations and cost options, including a relatively cheap option which would not include disabled access. Cllr. Douglas suggested artist impressions be considered if any solution was to be discussed so that people could see what the impact would be. It was noted that the outcome of the study could simply be that a footbridge was not possible in this location.

Cllr. Vaughan repeated some information that it would take 3 years to obtain ‘track time’ even if agreement were made to go ahead with a scheme, so regardless of the study, nothing was going to happen for some years.

Cllr. Wood explained that the Parish Council had been approached by residents in Moat Close about the proposed parking bays along the bank, to help with congestion with school parking. A resident was concerned as some workmen were measuring up in the area. Cllr. Vaughan would find out who they were and what they were measuring up for.              RV

8.0             New Vicar, Rev. John Lenton

Cllr. Wood introduced the new Vicar at St. James Church, Bramley. Rev. John Lenton thanked the Parish Council for inviting him to this meeting. He then gave a brief talk about why he had decided to join Bramley, and was pleased to note that there had been many occasions where they have had a full Church for services, with attendance holding up nicely overall

Cllr. Tottenham thanked John and Anthony for their work towards the Music Festival and commented that it had been a first class event. It was agreed that the standard of music was extraordinary.

Public Comments

See appendix

9.0             Environmental Matters

Cllr. Wood reported that he had been trying to speak with James Marsh at BDBC regarding an enforcement notice being issued regarding landscaping specification. It was noted that this still had not been agreed and that the LEAP had not appeared yet either. He discussed the matter of the central green and noted that there had been complaints regarding balls being kicked against cars. Having been unable to reach James Marsh, he spoke instead to Katherine Miles who explained that in place of an enforcement order, there was going to be a ‘strongly worded letter’ being sent to the developers about the outstanding issues.

Cllr. McCorry raised again the complaints made by residents at Kirby Drive, and felt that a 1m-1.5m looped fence around the central green would not stop the balls. It was noted that there were lay-bys surrounding the green for people to park their cars, and this proximity to the kick-about was always going to be a problem. It was noted that the Parish Council had suggested that the design was always going to be a problem. It was suggested that perhaps a kick-about be created in a different area of the development, for example at the end of the Cinder Track near the SINC, where there is a small piece of land. Cllr. Penfold suggested that parents may be less happy leaving their children to play in this area which is less overlooked. It was commented that perhaps part of the problem with regards to nuisance was parental guidance, but Cllr. Wood dismissed this as hearsay. Cllr. Tottenham asked what progress had been made regarding gate into the neighbouring play area at Yew Tree Close. Cllr. Wood was delighted to explain that there had been a success on this matter and that there was a post and rail fence in place connecting through to the other play area. It was noted that the sign, which had been requested by the PC, stating the age limit for the play area, was not yet in place. It was agreed that perhaps until the other play area within the new development was complete it would not be fair to exclude older children from the Yew Tree Close play area. Once the LEAP was complete the Parish Council would ensure that this sign is put in place.

Cllr. Wood updated on the matter of the tree which was removed from The Smithy. It was noted that this land still belonged to the Developers and that they had removed the tree as it was diseased. The PC had not been informed in the usual way by the Borough Council as it was not in their ownership. Cllr. Wood expressed concern that this had left a gap leading to the road and was worried that children could run out. The developers were being asked to report on the matter and were being asked whether they could re-plant this section.

Cllr. Douglas explained that he had contacted the tree officers about a tree at the corner of Minchen’s Lane, on the edge of the C32, as he felt that it might be diseased. The tree officer will report back following an inspection.

Allotments: It was noted that knotweed had been found in the area around the allotment gardens and this was being treated by one of the allotment holders who is a horticulturalist. It had also been reported to BDBC in case they needed to take any further action. All allotment holders had been written to about this so that they could look out for it spreading. It was also noted that an inspection of the area had revealed some hose pipes connected through fencing to some plots. It was noted that the current Terms and Conditions prevent the use of hose pipes and so all allotment holders were reminded of this condition and asked to remove the hoses from the site.

With regards to finding some new land for future allotment gardens, Cllr. Penfold reported that the Borough Council had been helpful but progress had been slow regarding the land at Bullsdown Farm which is owned by the Borough Council. There had been discussions with the Legal Team about the Borough Council’s compulsory purchase powers, and it was noted that this process was both lengthy and costly. It was also noted that the Parish Council would not wish to go for this heavy handed method.

She was continuing to evaluate the opportunity at Tudor Farm and explained that the land was no longer available in smaller plots, but was now for sale only as one large plot. It was noted that Saville’s had been asked to speak with the family about the Parish Council buying a 4-5 acre plot but that there had been no response to this request. It was noted that the Son of the seller lived at Tudor Farm, and Cllr. Penfold wondered whether she should speak with him directly to establish whether there was a way forward. It was clarified by Cllr. Vaughan that the land could not be built on.

The land at Cufaude Lane was mentioned in relation to potential allotment gardens and it was explained by Cllr. Vaughan that the area is prone to flooding and would not be suitable. Cllr. Penfold explained that the land at Tudor Farm appeared to be perfect to meet the requirements of allotment gardens but that there was a list of other options available also. Cllr Tottenham asked whether there was any land available at the other end of the village, as this is where a lot of the new development has taken place. He asked whether Forge Field could be considered for allotments. It was agreed that this should be looked at along with other options, as this land was always intended to be developed for community use. It was noted that smaller sites would only provide a short term solution and could be run in parallel to the existing site, but that we were ideally looking for a longer-term solution along the lines of the larger site just created at Chineham. Cllr. Wood asked Cllr. Penfold to establish the likely costs of setting up a new site, along the lines of Chineham, so that we could ensure the earmarked funds would be at the right level. It was suggested that set-up costs would be expected to be around £20,000.

10.0 Parish Plan Update

It was noted that the Parish Plan was to meet at the end of June and that the questionnaire should be ready by then, for delivery at the end of the summer holidays in the hope that there would be a better response rate. She explained that as a separate exercise she felt that the village ought to create a ‘Design Statement’ and she had spoken with Cllr. Holland about whether he could take this project on. Cllr. Holland agreed that he will look into scoping this project. It was noted that while this was not included under the scope of the Parish Plan, it would have to involve the whole village.

11.0 Representative Reports

Cllr. Tottenham explained that the Clift Meadow AGM was coming up on 6^th July in the Pavilions. He explained that there had been an offer of more memorial benches and he was getting quotes for those, including the engravings.

He went on to explain that a joint event for the Diamond Jubilee could be held on Clift Meadow on June 2^nd next year, and that he had already booked it in. It was noted that the Clift Trustees and the Church could pool resources and create a larger event in the hope of drawing more people, much like the event at Sherfield. It was noted that there was still some discussion about this within the Church but that Rev. John Lenton was in favour of joining together as a greater community. Cllr. Tottenham explained that in terms of fund-raising, the Sherfield fete raises enough for both camps and it was felt that both organisations could benefit from a joint event. Cllr. Wood explained that he would be happy to volunteer as a link across the PC and The Church.  Cllr. Vaughan said he would ask The Mayor whether he would attend.

Cllr. Holland explained that the Beat Panel was due to meet and he would report back following this. Cllr. Wood mentioned an article in the local paper about a traffic survey being carried out by another community stating that it would cost around £4,000. Cllr. Wood asked whether Cllr. Holland might be able to enquire about this at the Beat Panel meeting.

Cllr. McCorry asked whether anything could be done about the weight limit signs as there is a 7.5 tonne weight limit at the bridge on Vyne Road and once Lorries reach that point they cannot turn around. He went on to explain that he had phoned the 110 number about some vehicles which had been parked on the pavement all day, and felt that the police were not interested.

12.0 Correspondence/Consultations

Nothing to report.

13.0 Items for next meeting

The matter of the land at Longbridge Road should be decided by the next meeting. There had been an email update from Cathy Baker and it was noted that there was a proposal for a second public enquiry. It was noted that there was a meeting in Winchester on 24^th June, which was on the website.

There being no other business the meeting closed at 9.15pm.

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

Appendix – Letter regarding footbridge study

Dear Mr McCorry

Thank you for the email. This is a long response, so I've put headings in to help any readers.

Status

The feasibility work on the footbridge is continuing. Limited discussions with Network Rail have been underway through Engineering, but all towards getting agreement on what we thought was the primary local aspiration.

Consultation

The scheme will definitely not be built prior to further local consultation. At the moment we are just at the very early stages of feasibility and simply undertaking work to see if it is possible, which is a long process due to it being a very complex issue, likely to take several years until we can actually start construction. Our plan of attack had been that we would establish if it was buildable theoretically, undertake feasibility design work into the scale of the structure required, work out who would be advantaged/disadvantaged by it and then come back to the Parish Council and other local representatives for your decision on whether it was acceptable. We would then start full design and commence negotiations about obtaining track access, but all this would not happen before we had your formal decision based on all the information we could give you about impacts and scale following the study.

Scheme history

In terms of the original issue, it was raised to us by the Parish Council at the very first meeting about Bramley's transport issues that was held at John Ferguson's house in May 2008, when I was asked to investigate it as a priority. After that, there were regular questions asked about progress of the investigations, from the Parish Council (e.g. Cllr Mrs Payne on 8 June 2009, in an email through the HCC rail officer), Borough Cllrs Rhydian Vaughan and Ranil Jayawardena, and County Cllr Keith Chapman. The public then frequently referred to the need for a bridge or similar structure at the public consultation of March 2010, so although we do not have a precise number, I personally answered several queries about it. So added together, there is a sizeable history to this bit of work.

For information, the reason for the extended delay detailed above was because firstly we tried to get work undertaken by Network Rail, who promised they were doing it, but when it became clear that they were not proceeding anywhere near as fast as we would wish, I commenced the formal in-house study late last year. My apologies for this delay.

Scheme financing

Ultimately this is a Section 106 contribution that is available for spending for the advantage of the village, which means that if it is now not the preferred course of action, then it can be dropped. It is just that it was our understanding that this was identified as the most pressing concern facing the village, following site meetings with the various people listed above.

At present, the expenditure has been relatively small, and funded from our feasibility funding pot for the County as a whole. It is only once we have your approval of the study that we will commence spending the Section 106 money on the detailed design for the bridge. If that approval isn't forthcoming, then we will remove the "ringfence" of funding for the bridge and the pot of money will be available for tackling other issues in the village.

Summary

Like I say above, the money is only available for tackling problems within Bramley, or otherwise shown to be caused by the new residents from the development site in the local area. It will not suddenly disappear and be spent elsewhere. We were just advised that the bridge was the number one concern of the village.

I am happy to keep providing these updates, but it is likely to be into the autumn before the study is complete. I will then be in touch about arranging a formal meeting with the key local stakeholders where we can consider what is the way forward and whether to move this scheme in to detailed design.

I hope this email has helped make the situation clearer, but please get back to me if you need any further information.

Many thanks

Tom Robison 
Transport Team North

Appendix - Public Comments

Judith Foyle suggested that if the Parish Council were considering buying some land opposite the entrance to the Church (Tudor Farm), they should think about buying land for Burial Ground aswell. She felt that although the burial ground could be extended by using the current allotment gardens, the Parish should think further ahead and that the extra bit of land would be useful. It was agreed that the Parish Council would try to calculate how long the space available would last.

Phil Davies replied to a comment made earlier by Cllr. McCorry regarding press coverage of the footbridge study, and said that it does not do any harm to bring things up for airing. She went on to thank the Borough Council who had offered BVLS a generous donation to help the organisation over the next 12 months. She explained that there had been a loss of £800 due to travel tokens being reduced, and that the £400 donation to the Group would help. She thanked Cllr. McCorry for reporting back on a meeting which was held in Sherfield about rural travel, and noted that the next one would be on October 14^th, and would try to find out alternative travel arrangements for people.

It was noted that the Observer had reported that Tadley Police Station was to close down. Cllr. Holland was to ask about this when he attended the next Beat Panel meeting.

5.0             Planning Applications