Highclere Parish Council Highclere, Hampshire, England

Minutes of the Council Meeting held at Highclere Village Hall on Tuesday 8^th February  2005 at 7.35pm

16/05 To note the minutes of the Planning Meeting held on the 20^th January 2005

The Chairman explained that there was nothing of great significance from the minutes to report.   An application had been received for a new house on land at 11 and 15 Penwood Heights and because the Parish Council had objected it would be before the Development Control meeting on the 9^th February.  B&DBC’s officer report recommends approval.  Also an application had been made for a new house at 6 Arkwright Close, the Council were concerned about this as the access would be on the main A343 road.

17/05  Borough Councillor’s Report

The Borough Councillors report in full is at the end of the minutes, the main points from the report are:

The SE Plan had been published and he had spoken about it at the Highclere Society, who would be keen to support a public meeting, preferably in cooperation with the Parish Council.

The Penwood cross roads was now formally listed by B&D as a priority.

B&D had dropped charges for Sunday and additional evening parking at their car parks in the town centre and had agreed to reconsider charging for disabled drivers.

He had been talking to B&D about Anti Social Behaviour and they were willing to help but needed instances of this happening, so we needed to make sure everything that happened was reported and a note kept of the incidences.

He had asked for a site visit to the planning application that had been received for a new house at 11 and 15 Penwood Heights, this had taken place on the 4^th February.  This application was due to come before the Development Control meeting on the 9^th February.  He would be attending this meeting.  The Chairman Councillor Pearson also said he would be attending it.  The main problem with the application was that it seemed not to be in the same style and size of the rest of houses and if it went ahead it was likely to stick out like a ‘sore thumb’ as it was proposed to build it higher than the present houses.

18/05 South East Plan

The Borough Councillor had asked for this to be on the agenda. The full draft was a very long document and very complex – he felt that very few people would study it other than those with a strong vested interest. A questionnaire would be delivered to all households.  The clerk distributed copies to Councillors present.  The questionnaire appeared very loaded and questions appeared to be asked in such a way that the assembly would most likely get the answers they wanted.  To send it back one would have to find an envelope and a stamp, the council wondered if parishioners would actually wish to do this. The Borough Councillor said that when the questionnaires went out to the parishioners we might find that they had a free post on them. 

The Parish Council wondered about the legality of what the South East Assembly was doing as they were not elected body.  Who made up this body?  The Borough Councillor explained that elected representatives are sent from local authorities across the South East Area, including a representative from each of B&D and HCC.   There were also representatives of “stakeholders”, including bodies such as the Environment Agency and business representatives.  The Assembly was set up by the present Government and is funded mainly by ‘top slicing’ Government funding for local authorities. Technically it is a “voluntary” assembly but other than through the ballot box it is our only mechanism for influencing Government plans for matters such as house building. The critical issue is the balance between increased house building targets, infrastructure investment and the protection of the environment and our quality of life. At present the proposed range of house building targets has the present level of building as the minimum with a top figure about 25% higher than at present. The Government (Deputy Prime Minister) wants to go much higher than these figures. The leadership at B&D also want to have higher figures.

The Parish Council thought a public meeting would be a good idea.  Dates suggested were 2^nd March at Highclere Village Hall and the 3^rd March at Penwood Village Hall.  This meeting would be open to all parishioners.  The Clerk would speak to Highclere Society about this.  Councillor Mitchell said that once the date was confirmed he would organise someone to come along a talk about the plan.  It was suggested that the Parish of East Woodhay might be interested in attending the meeting.  The clerk would get in touch with them when dates were finalised.  If the dates were agreed in time the Clerk would organise for an article to go in the church magazine so more parishioners would here about it.

It seems Highclere is just on the edge of the area for highest levels of development but which side it is Councillor Mitchell was not sure.

Clerk’s Note: Subsequently discovered that East Woodhay already plans a meeting at Woolton Hill Church Hall on Saturday 10^th April at 10.00am.  In view of this and the problem of advertising a meeting in early March after the parish magazine has gone to press it would be better to participate in the East Woodhay meeting.  She would still speak to the Highclere Society and perhaps if they were still keen she would organise a meeting for early April in Highclere Village Hall.  It seems impracticable to get a good attendance at three local meetings especially at such short notice.

19/05 Update on Village Plan

Councillor Langan said that the Village Plan Steering Group had had their first meeting, attended by Councillors’ Langan and Drew, Borough Councillor Mitchell, Mrs Sue Roberts from the Highclere Society and Mr Jeremy Irwin as a representative of the village.  They had been through the sequence of activities from where they were now at to how they hoped the whole process would end.  There probably would not be the need to have as many focus groups as originally anticipated - five to six should be enough. It was important to understand and allow for the different needs and perspectives of people in the various settlements (Highclere, Penwood, Wash Water etc). A second meeting had been arranged for two days hence.  At that meeting they hoped to define the focus groups more so that there would not be an overlap between them.  Also to see if they are able to work how to get people divided fairly evenly between the groups when they have their first open meeting, which was planned for 23^rd March at Highclere Village Hall. 

There had been a fairly good response from the letters that the clerk had sent out; the Clerk would now send letters to interested parties and also to users of both village halls who had not replied to her earlier correspondence.  At the meeting there would be a short presentation about what the outcome was hoped for from this and also to organise the focus groups.  The Clerk would put an article in the Church magazine regarding the meeting so hopefully there would be a good attendance.

Councillor Langan hoped that we good get a good cross section of people to take an interest in the village plan and also from all parts of the village as some needs in parts of the village were different than other needs elsewhere.

20/05 Update on Penwood Cross Roads, A343 & Traffic Calming

The Parish Clerk had replied to the letter received from HCC, taking into account the comments that Councillor Farmer had made.  As of yet she had not received a response.  There had been some talk that the Highclere Society were going to do a traffic study.  The Clerk would check this out with them and if this is so ask if we can have some feedback.  Councillor East offered his help as he has done several studies at the cross roads.  Hopefully when the Focus Groups were formed for the village plan the group looking after transport etc would be about to help move this forward as well.

The Parish Council were still not happy with the way things were going with the traffic problems through Highclere and at the Penwood Cross roads and asked the Clerk to write to the local MP Sir George Young.

Clerk’s Note: Having discussed this with Sir George’s staff it appears that he does not usually intervene in local authority matters. If we have a serious dissatisfaction with a local authority and cannot get the right support from the local councillor (in this case Councillor Wall) then the appropriate next step is to take it up with the local government Ombudsman (http://www.lgo.org.uk/). However before doing this we would need a carefully prepared case. Perhaps we should ask Councillor Wall to attend a meeting at which we can discuss the history of our transactions with HCC in this matter and get his commitment to secure a more prompt and positive response from the relevant officers? Or perhaps a group of councillors could meet with Councillor Wall well before the annual assembly so that he would be able to report back then?

21/05  Annual Assembly  -  20^th April

The hall at Penwood had been booked for the evening of the 20^th April for the annual assembly, when the Parish Council hoped it would not clash with other events in the village.  The Clerk would ask the County Councillor and the Borough Council to attend so they are able to give their reports for the past year.  She would also let Highclere Charities know the date so hopefully they would be able to attend.

The Parish Council were concerned that the numbers attending the Annual Assembly seemed to be dropping.  Last year there had been a very interesting talk but only about 30 people attended.  The Clerk would put a notice in the Parish Magazine about it this month and next and also notices round the villages.  The Clerk would also ask the Highclere Society if they would send a note about it to their members as the majority of their members were from Penwood and Highclere.

The Parish Council thought as guest speaker it would be a good idea to have some one talk about the job of the Community Warden.  Perhaps rather than a manager we might actually be able to get some one who actually does the job.   There were now community wardens in Tadley and Bishops Green and it would be good if they are able to attend to talk about what they actually do.  The Clerk would look into this.

Clerk’s Note: Having consulted on this, there was some apprehension that we might raise expectations of getting community warden support for Penwood, when in reality there is at present no budget for this. It was suggested that as the scheme was described last year a further briefing on community wardens should not be held until we are confident that some support will become available? Perhaps an item on Planning and Development Control might attract interest as this is important to many local residents?

22/05  Correspondence

1. B&DBC – Parish Training – Development Control – Thursday 17^th March or Tuesday 22^nd March.  Councillors Pearson and Langan would attend the March 17^th meeting.  The Clerk would reply.

2. Highclere Society – re Footpaths etc  - Highclere Society’s reply to paper emailed by the Chairman in October.  Whilst they agreed that improvements were needed in several areas especially a safer way of enabling pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road at Penwood Cross roads, they felt that after careful consideration they could not support the Council’s proposal for a footpath feeling it would change the rural character of the village and the vast amount of money it would take could go to better uses.  They had come to this conclusion after an extensive consultation with the whole villages a few years ago.  The council felt that once the Village Plan was up and running with the focus groups it would be taken over by the transport group and when a questionnaire went out to the parishioners they would find out if the feeling was the same now as it was then.

3. B&DBC  -  The Council had received a letter from B&D asking if the two roads to the east of the Andover road opposite Star Lane and Mount Road had a name.  They had had a query about this and did not know the answer.  The Clerk had been in touch with quite a few local parishioners to see if they knew but all seemed to come up with something different.  The Parish Council all felt that if these roads did have a name they were both Church Lane joining together and then onto the church.  The road to the left over the bridge past Brook House they thought was Back Lane.  The Clerk would have a word with HCC just in case they had an old map with a name on it but would let B&D know that if the lane did have a name it was Church Lane.

4. B&DBC  -  Pedestrian Access Improvement Capital Programme.  The Council had received a letter re funding for footpaths and lights.  The scheme was limited to £15,000 for footpaths and £10,000 for lighting.  Even though the Parish Council is keen to have footpaths through part of the village this scheme is too early for them to apply for as they now wish to wait for the Village Plan focus groups to be set up so they know exactly what the parishioners would like in their village.

5. HCC  -  Repair work at Washwater Bridge  A letter had been received from HCC asking who owns the land to the South East of the Washwater Bridge.  The Parish Council felt that it was owned by the people who owned the farm and caravan park there.  The Clerk would let HCC know.

6. HAPTC  -  Seminar on the Draft South East Plan – 14^th February.  None of the Councillors are able to attend this but the Clerk will attend.

7. HAPTC – Clerks Day Conference 10^th March.  Annual conference for Clerks.  Clerk will attend.

8. HAPTC – New Statutory Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures in the Workplace.  Probably will not apply to us as the Clerk works from home and the other employees of the council are the litter wardens who are out and about.

9. Highclere Village Hall – Reply to the Parish Council’s letter regarding concerns of extension to the village hall.  The Council had had a letter from the Chairman of Highclere Village hall enclosing a letter from the their Building Surveyor.  Unfortunately even though some of the questions that the Council were concerned about had been answered they were still concerned that once work started on the extension the Village Hall Committee might come up against problems and face more expenditure than expected.  The Clerk would write and let them know that though they are doing a marvellous job the Council still have concerns about the proposed extension.  The Council also asked the Clerk to ask the Village Hall Committee to provide copies of the minutes of their meetings.

10. The Local Channel – Freedom of Information Act.  This is an act that has just come into force.  Highclere Parish hope to get their publication registered in the next couple of months.  The Local Channel are offering ideas how to go about making the information available.

11. HCC  -  Reception for Parish & town Councils – 1^st March.  Up to two people are able to attend this.  Unfortunately none of the Councillors’ are free to go.  The Clerk will attend if she is free.

12. B&DBC – The Future of Supplementary Planning Guidance.  There was rather concern over this and the Council still hoped that B&DBC would take notices of the VDS.  Councillors Pearson and Langan are going a Parish Training Session on Development Control and they hope that this subject might come up.

13. B&DBC – Provision of Legal Services to Town & Parish Councils.  At a clerks meeting there was a presentation from the Legal Department of B&DBC.  They were happy to do work for Parish Councils’ if needed as they had spare capacity at B&D in their Legal Department.  There would be a charge for this service.  The Parish Council felt that the present lawyer that they had been using for the Penwood Village Hall had given us excellent service, so they would use him again if they needed legal advice.

14. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – Freedom of Information Act.  This had been mentioned earlier on in other correspondence and the clerk was working on the Council’s publication.

15. Neighbourhood Watch Newsletter – Incident at Penwood Village Hall.  The Clerk had received an email from a neighbourhood watch member.  There had been quite a serious altercation at Penwood Village Hall during a private party and the police had to be called.   One young man had been arrested but there were others who had managed to get away.  The police were asking for assistance in finding these other youngster.

16. The South East Plan  -  Draft for Public Consultation January 2005.  This had been discussed earlier under item 18/05.

Other Correspondence (available for Councillors to review):

South East Plan – Leaflets & Resource Pack – no comment

North Wessex Downs – Nomination form regarding appointment of advisory members plus set of presentations for the November Forum – no comment

The Countryside Agency – Criteria for undertaking a review of an area of outstanding natural beauty – no comment

HAPTC – Successful bids from the investment fund towards Quality Councils.  As the Council was not going for Quality Council at this moment in time this was not relevant

Community Transport News letter – January 2005 – the clerk has a copy.

The Playing Field Newsletter – the clerk has a copy.

23/05  Accounts For Payment

The following accounts were passed for payment. HAPTC (Clerks annual conference) £42.00, D. Mitchell (flowers for P East funeral) £33.00, BT (Telephone) £22.36, L. McClelland (litter warden) £62.12, W Bendle (litter warden) £151.88, C Corrall (litter warden) £124.68, D Mitchell (Salary) £484.58, Inland Revenue (PAYE etc) £205.43.

24/05 Councillors’ matters arising to be included in the next agenda