| 48/05 To elect the Chairman of the Parish Council Before a new Chairman was elected, Councillor Langan who had taken the chair wanted to make a few comments. Councillor Langan said that he was concerned that Council meetings were not effective enough. They often digressed from the subject of an agenda item, and discussion was generally rambling and unstructured, so that it lasted too long. He proposed that for each agenda item, the Chairman should ask each Councillor member in turn to express his or her view, then the Chairman should sum up and state clearly what decision had been reached, so that the Clerk could note the decision with confidence. It had also been noted that the same topics appeared on the agenda across too many meetings, indicating that the Council were failing to properly action an item and move on. In this context he felt that the Clerk was shown against much too high a proportion of the actions, as shown in the action column of the minutes, and that the Council would be more effective if individual Councillors took on responsibility for actions between meetings. The Council decided that a topic should only be on the agenda for a maximum of four successive meetings. [Clerk’s note: Best practice suggests that (a) an item should only be on the agenda if the Council is able to make a decision about it, and (b) the same item should only reappear on the agenda if and when a new decision is to be taken. Where a decision has been taken, the outcome of that decision should be discussed as a ‘matter arising’ from the minutes of the meeting, rather than having the same item on the agenda again] Councillors’ expressed frustration at the difficulty in moving things forward where the Council has no authority and can only request action, eg the A343 and Penwood Cross Roads. [Clerk’s note: This is well understood. However, repeated discussion in meeting after meeting about such items doesn’t appear to accelerate any result. It might be better if particular matters outside the powers of the Council were delegated to a named Councillor to assume responsibility and work with the Clerk and outside authorities (eg Borough/County councillors etc) on a continuing basis, rather than a monthly debate resulting in a monthly letter!] Councillor East then proposed Councillor Pearson as Chairman. Seconded by Councillor Langan and carried nem con. Councillor Somerset proposed Councillor Langan as Vice Chairman. Seconded by Councillor Castle and also carried nem con. 49/05 To approve the minutes of the Council meeting held on 12th April 2005 The minutes of the meeting held on 12th April 2005 had been circulated, were taken as read, agreed by all, and signed by the Chairman Councillor Pearson. 50/05 To Note the Minutes of the Planning Meeting held on the 14th April Each Councillor had had a copy of the minutes and any matters arising would be discussed under item 5. 51/05 To Note the minutes of the Annual parish Meeting held on 20th April 2005 Each Councillor had had a copy of the minutes and any matters arising would be discussed under item 5 52/05 Matters arising: planning The Parish Council were concerned that in the application at 11 & 15 Penwood Heights the VDS had not been taken into consideration. The previous application for this had been passed and the latest application was for a slight amendment. The Council were still not happy with it. The second application that the Council had objected to was land at Limeridge and Whitewood. The Council still objected to this very strongly and wished to speak if it came before the Development Control Committee. The text for the objection to be read at the meeting would be agreed by the Planning Committee before hand. which the Clerk would copy to the Borough Councillor. Councillor Hosie said she would attend the meeting as an observer. Councillor Castle then asked about the land along the Mount which had been included in the local plan development, the land was not in the Policy Settlement Boundaries. The Council should know the outcome shortly. 53/05 Borough Councillor’s Report Councillor Mitchell had sent his apologies as he unfortunately had to attend another meeting. He also said that because of the recent elections in the area all had been fairly quiet at Basingstoke so there was nothing to report. 54/05 Feedback from Annual Meeting The Parish Council were still concerned at how few parishioners had attended - 22 this year plus the Council members and speakers, four years ago there had been about 60/70 members of the Parish at the meeting. A few days prior to the meeting most Councillor members and a local Parishioner had done a leaflet drop in their area and over two hundred leaflets had been distributed. The Clerk said that having mentioned this to other clerks our attendance was not out of line with others’ experience. All Council members were asked to think of ideas of how to entice more parishioners in next year, they have eleven months to come up with some good ideas! The council felt apart from that the meeting had gone very well, kept to time and with many questions to the guest speaker Mr Giorgio Framalicco, Development Control Manager for B&DBC. When the meeting was over the majority of those present stayed on to partake of refreshments and talk to members of the Council, the Borough Councillor and Mr Framalicco. The Clerk had written to Mr Framalicco, Councillor Wall and Councillor Mitchell for their input to the meeting. 55/05 Update on the Village Plan Councillor Langan reported on what the Steering Group had been doing. It seems they were still widening the list of volunteers for the Focus Groups as well as the 35 people that had attended the meeting held at the end of March. They were in the process of sending out letters to the people who had attended that meeting with an update of where they were. They were also in the process of writing up leaflets which would be dropped through people’s doors to see if they would be able to get more parishioners interested. A note was also in the process of being produced to give to the leaders running the younger organisations in the village ie brownies, playgroups etc. The Clerk would then ask the leaders to give a leaflet to the parents when the children were collected, this might, hopefully, bring additional younger people into joining the focus groups - at present there was no one under forty. The Steering group would also contact the local neighbourhood watch leaders to see if any of them were interested in joining in the Village Plan. Councillor Langan explained that talking to other parishioners developing the Village Plan was a long job. He felt though that once the Focus Groups got going things would start to move forward at a quicker pace. Unfortunately Councillor Drew had had to withdraw from the Steering Group because of business pressures. His place has been taken by Councillor Castle. 56/05 - Changes in Responding to Planning Applications The Clerk had produced guidelines for the Council to follow so hopefully mistakes would not be made in the future. The main points of the guidelines were: If there were no objections to a planning applications all was straightforward. If there were objections then once the clerk had received the plans and comments back from the Councillors’ she would formalise the objections and email them to the Planning Committee, who would have 48 hours to comment before the text was sent to BDBC. The Planning Committee would decide whether the Council should be represented at a Development Control Committee meeting and would decide who should attend. The person attending would write a statement and circulate it to other members of the Planning Committee for their comments. The Clerk would copy the agreed statement to the Borough Councillor for information. If for any reason the delegated speaker made any changes before speaking, an amended copy of the statement would be returned to the Clerk for filing. With some amendments the Clerk’s draft was agreed. It was agreed that where the Council had objected to an application, the application file would be made available at the next Council meeting so Councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee can better understand the basis on which objections have been made. 57/05 - Anti Social Behaviour – update on arrangements for a June Meeting The Clerk had arranged the meeting for 2.30pm on Friday 3rd June. PC King, Jason Murphy (Anti Social Behaviour coordinate) and Lynne Grimshaw (Sentinel) would attend. Penwood Village Hall was the preferred venue – Clerk to check. Councillor East would collect the keys for the hall and he would work liaise with the Borough Councillor to agree the best process for the meeting. 58/05 - Correspondence received 1. B&DBC - The Future of Supplementary Planning Guidance. This was about revised explanatory notes about SPG and the clerk had given copies of this letter to Council Members 2. B&DBC - Pride of Place Partnership Initiative Copies had been given to Council Members 3. HCC - Consultation on minerals & waste issues - This was an invitation to participate in the planning for minerals and waste management throughout Hampshire 4. B&DBC - Playground Inspection & Maintenance Training Course - B&DBC maintain the play areas in Penwood. 5. Letter received re Highclere Village Hall. A letter had been received from a parishioner asking the Council as trustees to support plans for a new Village Hall at a different location rather than the improvement of the existing hall. Councillors were in sympathy with the idea of a new village hall if a suitable site were available, but were conscious that any such plans would require widespread public consultation as well as active support from the Village Hall Management Committee. At least some aspects of the existing proposals were required to comply with disabled access requirements. Councillors wondered whether it would be practicable to do what is essential but hold back the remaining funds to support a new hall if and when a site is found. [Clerks note: Because the grants and donations had been specifically made for the proposed improvements to the existing hall there would be considerable difficulty persuading donors and grant making organisations to leave the funds in hand on the vague expectation that another project might emerge] The Parish Council did discuss whether there should be only one hall for Highclere and Penwood and Penwood Hall should be upgraded as there was adequate parking there. Nothing was decided on this point. The matter would be considered at a future date when the outcome of the Village Plan programme is known. The Clerk would respond to letter, with a draft sent to the Council Members’ first. Other Correspondence (available for Councillors to review) Local Government First – May publication Trafalgar Weekend - 21-23rd October 2005 - A guide to Taking Part – the clerk has a copy if anyone wishes to look at if B&DBC - Office closures etc - the clerk has a copy if anyone wishes to look at it. 59/05 - Accounts for Payment The following accounts were passed for payment. BT (telephone costs) £27.44, L McClelland (litter warden) £61.80, W Bendle (litter warden) £151.08, C Corrall (litter warden) £128.68, D Mitchell (expenses, mileage and meeting costs 20/04/04) £102.48, Inland Revenue (PAYE/NI) £226.85, D Mitchell (salary) £530.27 60/05 Councillors’ matters arising to be included in the next agenda Feedback from ASB meeting. |