| Mr C. J Barber |
Mr C. M. Dewbury |
| Mr R. R. Bourne |
|
| Mr I. F. Bush |
Mr M. Johnson |
| Mrs J Clear |
Mrs J. Jolliffe |
| Mrs M. J. Darrah |
Mrs S. Jones |
Cllr. J Neal
Apologies were received from Mrs G. J. Goodliffe
(deferred from previous meeting)
The Minutes were approved unanimously.
The Minutes were approved unanimously.
The Minutes were approved unanimously.
Minute 03/04 - Flooding. The Chairman reported that letters had been issued, and responses were awaited. Sir George Young had kindly offered his assistance should it be needed.
It was agreed that Sir George would be asked to help should the problem recur; Test Valley would also be asked to intervene.
Mrs Darrah thanked Mr Barber for his excellent letters. Mr Barber will invite Mr Neil Burns to a future meeting for further discussions on this subject. If possible he will arrange for him to speak at the annual meeting on 10 March. ACTION JB
TVN.02761/3 – Extend single storey side extension to provide enlarged bedroom with pitched roof over - Jaydee, 133 North Acre – Mr & Mrs Hayward.
DECISION: NO OBJECTION
Noted that the recent applications for Braeside and Drove Cottage had both been approved by TVBC.
Mr Barber and Mrs Darrah had jointly drafted a response to the Plan as agreed at the last meeting. Noted that this response has to be with TVBC by Thursday 13th February.
Cllr Neal reported that many of the points which had been raised had also been addressed by TVBC Councillors.
The response letter to TVBC was approved unanimously, as drafted. (Copy attached – Appendix A)
Mrs Darrah had distributed the latest draft to all members. Mr David Bibby of TVBC has confirmed to her that he can see no need for any substantive amendments. He had, however, suggested some minor presentational changes, which had been accepted.
The Village Design Statement was approved unanimously as presented.
The next stage is approval by TVBC. Mrs Darrah will try to deliver the completed document to TVBC by 1st March so they can consider it at their March meeting. ACTION MJD
Mrs Darrah has been given the name of a graphic design consultant (Ms Diana Darbyshire) who can assist in the production of this final version of the document. She will investigate the cost of this service; and also of the cost of a ‘Web’ version of the VDS. Noted that grant-in-aid funds – up to £1,000 - are available for this work. It was agreed that Mrs Darrah should proceed with this design offer. ACTION MJD
The Parish Council recorded its sincere thanks to Mrs Darrah for undertaking this most valuable and time-consuming task.
Finance Summary -The financial summary sheet for the last month was presented by the Clerk. (Copy attached – Appendix B)
Risk Assesment – Mr Johnson re-issued his paper on Risk Assesment. He said that the internal auditor’s advice had been acted upon, and the Risk Assesment profile is now much improved, and forms a good grounding for the future.
The Chairman thanked Mr Johnson for his valuable contribution to this work.
The Risk Assessment document was approved and adopted unanimously. (Copy attached – Appendix (C)
The Clerk advised members of the procedure for the Parish Council Elections which will be held on Thursday 1st May 2003. He emphasised that nomination papers, which are available from the Chairman, must reach the Returning Officer at TVBC no later than noon on Tuesday 1st April 2003. ACTION All Candidates
Playground Fencing: Three quotations have been received by Mrs Jolliffe.
It was agreed that the lowest quotation so far appeared to be the best, but it was noted that there was a considerable amount of preparatory work to be undertaken, such as bramble cutting along the route of the fence. Contractors will be asked to quote for the bramble removal work. Other quotations are still to be received and assessed. ACTION JJ
Cllr Neal has spoken to Mr David Rogers of Purbeck, and will liaise with him to co-ordinate the fencing work with that of the Youth Shelter. Noted that: Mr Bourne considers the fencing 4’x3’ posts are possibly too small because of the extreme softness of the ground. He believes that heavier gauge posts are needed. ACTION JN
It was agreed to check that the fencing specifications across the tenderers are comparable; and if so, to proceed with the cheapest quotation. The additional fence between the playground and the cricket field will also be provided. Mrs Jolliffe will liaise with the Cricket Club about the specification. ACTION JJ
Mrs Jolliffe advised that RoSPA had offered to undertake a full safety assessment of the Playground area for £33.00. It was agreed that this should be done.
Skate Ramp: Mr Bourne told the meeting that the police had drawn attention to some defects in the ramp’s construction. Mr Barber will investigate the problem, and report it to the manufacturer, who is due to return to site shortly to undertake any remedial action.
Cllr Neal reported that he has received a letter from Mr Matt Bell requesting an additional ‘¼ Pipe’ or ‘Street’ facility. The council considered that additional facilities were not consistent with the policy of having a low key facility. They noted that TVBC proposes to improve facilities in Andover. Mr Barber will write to Mr Bell. ACTION JB
Clean-Up Day - 29 March:. Mrs Jolliffe had arranged food for volunteers at The Plough.
Some minor levelling works are required in the cemetery. Cllr Neal will speak to Highways regarding the encroachment of brambles on to the road. ACTION Cllr J Neal
Football Field: Mr Bourne reported that he considers the state of the football field now to be dangerous, with holes and ruts. He said that it is likely that the Borough Council will now refuse to mow the pitch. Mrs Darrah agreed to speak to Middleton Estates on the situation. ACTION MJD
Lower Mill Bridge: Cllr Neal has spoken to the Bridge Officer, who has agreed to remedy the damage caused by the building contractors. A lay by will be installed.
Sugar Lane: A problem has been reported with pushchair access into Gladstone Terrace because of the gully cover. Mr Dewbury said that he had spoken to Mr Perrin and the Environment Agency. Run-off silt from the fields is blocking the culvert; this is being dealt with by the various agencies. Mr Dewbury also reported pot-holes in Sugar Lane. Cllr Neal agreed to take this up with Highways. ACTION Cllr J Neal
It is now confirmed that the Test Way is shown on the definitive map as being routed through The Plough. Mrs Darrah agreed to check that the signage is correct. ACTION MJD
Nothing to report.
Nothing to report.
Mrs Jones reported that there is now an excellent cleaner for the Village Hall.
It was noted that both Mrs Gould and Mr Barber have been interviewed by The Times and the NALC regarding the Longparish web site. An article is to appear in The Times shortly.
A summary of Correspondence received was presented by the Clerk and is attached as Appendix D.
Mr Bourne reported that each police car in the area is now equipped with a Polaroid camera and film for site of crime recording. This is provided by the Leckford Fund, to which the Parish Council made a £50 donation for the purchase of film last year.
Annual Parish Meeting and Parish Council Meeting – 10 March 2003 at 19.00 (PLEASE NOTE TIME!!)
Clean up Day - 29 March 2003
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 21.40
Text of letter sent 11 February 03 to Mrs M Winter, Head of planning, TVBC
Please note that this letter contains objections to the Initial Deposit Draft. We have not used your form, as it is not appropriate for the comments we wish to make.
I am writing on behalf of the Longparish Parish Council to register our thanks for the opportunity to comment on the draft local plan.
May we begin by saying that we consider the present draft plan to be more helpful and informative than previous plans. In addition the consultation is easier because the plan is displayed on the Internet as well as being available on CD and in hard copy. We think this is very welcome. Whilst the comments which follow represent objections they should be read as our attempts to make constructive suggestions for improvements.
This letter contains some fundamental objections to the strategy you propose for villages. It is difficult to specify all the policies where our views differ from those in the plan and we have not attempted to do so. We trust this will not invalidate our comments. If it will, please treat this letter as objecting to everything to keep the matter open.
In addition we have commented on various issues of details. Some are about presentation and some about specific policies. Unless we indicate otherwise, all these comments should be treated as objections.
Longparish is just that; a long parish. In previous plans the whole of the village has been on one map. This time it is on two maps; inset map 20 (Forton and Middleton) and inset map 33 (Longparish). This is very confusing. To start with we thought that Forton had been totally omitted. Please would you put the two maps on one sheet next time around.
Policies are named with three letters and a number. To the layman this is difficult to understand. We always have problems in interpreting decisions on planning matters because of this shorthand way of describing policies. Often it means we don't have a clue what you are talking about. We suggest that you provide a handy checklist of what all the various policies say to assist users, publish it in hard copy and on the net and issue it free to all parish councillors
We have long objected to the policy of infilling SET07. This is why.
There are few if any spaces in our village where is would be possible to build new houses under this policy. Such houses as have been built have been large in relation to the size of the plots concerned. The effect is to make the village cramped. And the policy does not result in homes for people at the lower end of the housing ladder.
Despite a modest amount of new housing in most decades of the last century, the population of our village is dropping. It is now less than it was 100 years ago. There are many reasons including
smaller households
a steady increase in the number of holiday cottage
an ageing population
This had led to our school, playgroup, shop, pubs and Post Office being under threat. This threat is recognised in your policy ESN17 retention of existing local shops and public houses and ESN18 retention of local community facilities.
Similar effects are to be seen in other villages. Villages are not museums and we need them to be vital villages.
People want to live in villages. This is demonstrated by the high prices village properties command. The plan does not accommodate the needs of these people. At the same time, farmers are leaving huge areas of land to grow weeds under set aside rules.
It is very odd that we can have developments in the countryside to accommodate roads (such as the widening of the A303) but not sensible developments to accommodate people.
Your proposals about low cost housing ESN05 rural exception affordable housing do not represent a balanced approach to these issues. They are very restrictive and there will always be pressure to seek ways round them and use them as the 'thin end of the wedge'.
We consider that the plan should be made more flexible to accommodate modest increases in the size of villages by backland developments and developments in the countryside of a range of house. This would include be not be limited to low cost ones. That would enable developers to offer some benefit to the villages concerned though S106 agreements. The extra houses would bring extra people which would help villages keep amenities such as pubs and shops.
Such flexibility would need to be carefully handled. We consider that it should be done within overriding guidelines to prevent villages being swamped and only if the villages concerned decide though Parish Plans, that they want that sort of approach. It should not be foisted upon villages as happened with the earlier proposals for Barton Stacey.
Such development should not be constrained to be at the high densities referred to in ESN03. That is not appropriate to villages.
Our village hall is over 90 years old and poorly located. We will consider how to address these issues in the context of a Village Plan to be prepared over the next year or so. We do not have a particular site in mind but should be grateful for assurances that the Plan is sufficiently flexible to accommodate a new village hall should we decide to build one.
Similarly, our playgroup is poorly housed in an old portacabin. We should be grateful for assurances that the Plan is sufficiently flexible to accommodate a permanent home for the playgroup.
Within such development there would be scope for modest houses for elderly people who wish to trade down and free off larger houses. We feel that the approach in 6.4.43 and 6.4.49 is wrong. People should not be forced to leave their village when they get old.
It would also be possible to encourage home working within such development. That would be consistent with the aim of reducing travel by car, as homeworkers do not need to commute.
A possible approach would be to encourage homeworkers by the sort of council tax reductions now given to holiday homes
We are concerned that the plan (apart from an oblique reference in 6.4.12 which is very welcome) does not address these issues at all. Making a Parish Plan is a major exercise, particularly when those involved are volunteers without special planning expertise. We recommend a new policy to the effect that the Borough Council encourages parishes to produce Parish Plans and will assist them to do so.
We consider that the present policy of reducing the Council Tax for holiday homes is wrong. It encourages holiday homes when we need people who will live in our village and contribute to it; not just take advantage of it at weekends. Of course this is a sweeping generalisation and there are exceptions but nonetheless we recommend that the reduction should be discontinued and the funds raised should be ploughed back into the villages concerned.
The plan identifies important open areas between settlements but does not mention important open spaces. These are identified for Longparish on the Conservation Area map and we consider that this information should be included in the plan as it will assist users in interpreting policies.
Modest incursions into the countryside should be permitted so as to avoid situations such as the prolonged saga of the tennis court at Foxdale House, Andover Down, LONGPARISH (TVN.00867) which went to appeal over a few feet of incursion into a field that very few people can see.
We appreciate that such a policy would need to be phrased carefully and do not suggest a form of words. But we object to policy SET03 and other policies which aim rigidly to maintain existing curtilages.
We consider that the plan should make provision for improving access to the countryside by facilitating modest parking areas so people who wish to walk can do so. You have only to visit the Middleway at the weekend to see why. In particular this should be taken into account in the proposals for expansion of Andover (Chapter 10) as this will increase the pressure on the Middleway.
We claim some expertise on noisy sports as a result of our experience with the Owls Lodge Shooting Ground. We consider that policy ESN23 Noisy sports is inconsistent with paragraph 9.1.12 about policy AME04 noise and vibration.
Our experience was that a policy such as ESN23 is inadequate to decide whether noise will be acceptable. As it does not lay down testable measure it opens the way to long, expensive and divisive disputes. That is what happened in Longparish and the plan should learn from that experience.
It is worth observing that other Councils specify lower noise levels than those by which your council decided this matter. See for example the evidence of John Sellar in paragraph 4 of his report of 5 November 2001 in which he mentions three Boroughs which do so.
We consider that policy ESN23 should lay down objective tests. It should specify both a maximum level (we would recommend 55Db whereas your council went for 65dB) and a separate test that noise levels should not exceed a stated amount above background even if the absolute level is lower than 55bB. BS4142 measures by reference to background levels. A noise is annoying if it is significantly in excess of background levels. And impulsive, irregular noises are more annoying than uniform continuous noises. This is recognised in BS4142 which recommends refusal at 10dB(A) above background and adds 3dB(A) to measured levels of impulsive noise.
It is a great pity that Village Design Statements are relegated to an appendix. We consider that the Borough should encourage and assist the production of Village Design Statements and that Chapter 8, Design, should be expanded accordingly.
We consider that there should be a relaxation so that modest changes to listed building to meet other statutory requirements (for example increases in chimney heights to satisfy the Building Regulations) should not require planning permission.
We support the objective of minimising vehicle movements and would like to see two changes
Parking problems at rural schools would be reduced if buses were available to all school children, not just those living more than a set distance from the school
Parking fees for public car parks should be reduced or waived for vehicles carrying three or more people. This could be a administered by a scheme similar to that for the disabled.
We find it odd that there should be appraisals for new developments but no appraisals to see whether existing developments such as villages are sustainable. We recommend that the plan should proposals for such work.
|
|
2001/2002 |
2002-3 |
2002-3 |
2002-3 |
2002-3 |
|
|
Total 31/12 |
Budget |
Total 31/12 |
01/01-10/02 |
Total 31/01 |
| Income |
|
|
|
|
|
| Precept |
13000.00 |
14,000.00 |
14000.00 |
|
14000.00 |
| Interest |
26.28 |
925.00 |
445.98 |
13.19 |
459.17 |
| Cemetery |
99.00 |
250.00 |
163.50 |
19.50 |
183.00 |
| Allotments |
36.00 |
36.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
| VAT Rebate |
0.00 |
130.00 |
172.22 |
|
172.22 |
| Handbooks |
0.00 |
0.00 |
20.00 |
|
20.00 |
| Grants |
0.00 |
200.00 |
12383.00 |
|
12383.00 |
| Other |
1.00 |
0.00 |
5491.92 |
151.94 |
5643.86 |
| Paths |
0.00 |
0.00 |
25.00 |
|
25.00 |
| TOTAL |
13,162.28 |
15,541.00 |
32701.62 |
184.63 |
32886.25 |
| Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
| Clerks Pay/Expenses |
1101.08 |
1,600.00 |
1238.09 |
|
1238.09 |
| Insurance |
429.42 |
500.00 |
512.44 |
|
512.44 |
| Legal/professional |
335.40 |
500.00 |
587.50 |
|
587.50 |
| Subscriptions |
149.50 |
200.00 |
202.00 |
|
202.00 |
| Misc admin |
164.70 |
250.00 |
109.45 |
|
109.45 |
| Elections |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
| Open spaces |
2241.34 |
4,700.00 |
21219.60 |
722.23 |
21941.83 |
| Allotments |
36.00 |
36.00 |
36.00 |
|
36.00 |
| Paths |
0.00 |
200.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
| Capital expenditure |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
| Hill & Valley |
297.99 |
500.00 |
500.00 |
|
500.00 |
| Village Hall |
120.85 |
600.00 |
642.07 |
|
642.07 |
| Parish handbook |
0.00 |
150.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
| Village Design Statement |
0.00 |
400.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
| Inclusive Commty. Project |
5000.00 |
5,900.00 |
5437.43 |
|
5437.43 |
| Other |
0.00 |
3,600.00 |
890.40 |
|
890.40 |
| VAT |
128.70 |
|
1194.08 |
125.52 |
1319.60 |
| TOTAL |
10,004.98 |
19,136.00 |
32569.06 |
847.75 |
33416.81 |
| Bank Balance |
|
|
7413.04 |
|
6749.92 |
| Invested with HCC |
21601.60 |
|
27,445.10 |
|
27,445.10 |
Cheques drawn since 1 January 2003
| Date |
Cheque No. |
Who to |
What for |
Amount |
| 13 January |
393 |
HCC |
Street Lighting |
29.71 |
| 13 January |
394 |
Southern Electric |
Car Park Lights |
7.29 |
| 13 January |
395 |
Paul Knipe |
Southside Common |
763.75 |
| 13 January |
396 |
TVBC |
Playground Inspection |
47.00 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
£847.75 |
As a new requirement of the annual audit process a risk assessment analysis was conducted by the Finance committee.
In his report of the 11th of October 2002 the Internal Auditor had highlighted some areas of concern and this formed the basis for an improvement programme undertaken before the year end as reflected in the following summary.
The assessment focused on 4 areas:
There is a clear set of policies and procedures based on recognised good practice and these appear to be routinely applied in the conduct of the council. This is not considered an area for policy and procedure development but rather of ensuring that established systems continue to be rigorously followed.
Following recent increases in the level of insurance cover including public liability cover there is now an adequate cover against risk and an annual review will become a regular activity.
The fabric of the skate ramp is not insured at present. We recommend that it is insured and understand that the insurance company has already been asked to quote. The 2003/4 budget includes for the first time a provision of £500.00 for future replacement of playground equipment. It will be necessary to continue or increase this level of annual provision if sufficient monies are to be available at the end of the projected life of the current equipment.
During the year there have been examples of computer problems that highlight the vulnerability of the council records in electronic format without adequate protection systems.
One established procedure is that the Clerk sends the financial spreadsheet to the chairman and myself before Parish Council meetings. Unfortunately this did not happen in December and the Clerk's computer crashed shortly afterwards and it was necessary to reconstruct the spreadsheet from the November copy. This incident highlights the importance of keeping copies of electronic documents off site. We recommend that the procedure is extended to outgoing correspondence.
During the year new safeguards include the installation of virus protection software that is to be updated regularly together with back up procedures
Provided these procedures are followed then the records should be secure and consideration is being given as to how best to audit adherence to the procedures
The playground is the principal focus in this topic area. The ROSPA report to be undertaken in May 2003 will include a risk assessment section which will be extremely helpful.
As a result of the changes already introduced the Council’s risk assessment profile is both improved and considered to be generally adequate in relation to the nature and scale of the Council’s responsibilities.
The expert opinion of ROSPA that is to become available in May could highlight the need for additional safeguards with regard to playground safety.
Mike Johnson and Jeremy Barber (For the Finance Committee)
|
|
DATE |
FROM |
SUBJECT |
| 1 |
17 Jan 2003 |
TVBC |
Revised Full Electoral Register notice |
| 2 |
20 Jan 2003 |
SEERA |
Draft Transport Strategy Consultation Documents |
| 3 |
22 Jan 2003 |
TVBC |
The Mayor of Test Valley’s Appeals 2002/3 |
| 4 |
29 Jan 2003 |
HCVYS |
‘Connexions’ – voluntary services |
| 5 |
30 Jan 2003 |
HAPTC |
Proposed South Downs National Park |
| 6 |
30 Jan 2003 |
HAPTC |
HAPTC Lobby to Electoral Commission about access to full Register of Electors |
| 7 |
30 Jan 2003 |
HAPTC |
Seminar for New Councillors – 15 July 2003 – Winchester Guildhall |
| 8 |
31 Jan 2003 |
TVBC |
Invitation to opening of the Inclusive Playground – Memorial Park - Romsey |
| 9 |
Jan 2003 |
CPRE |
‘Planning Update magazine and Rural Matters |
This site uses CSS. To see it at its best, you should use a browser that understands them. See, for example, www.mozilla.com