HIGHCLERE
PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of an
extraordinary meeting held at Highclere
Village Hall on Tuesday 17 December
2002 commencing at 7.30pm
Present
Councillor J Pearson
Chairman
Councillor R East
Councillor D Langan
Councillor T Farmer
Councillor F Somerset
Councillor R Drew
Councillor Mrs M Davies
Councillor Mrs A Hosie
Also Present
Borough Councillor Tim
Jardine
134/02 TO CONSIDER THE
CONSULTATION DOCUMENT "REVIEW OF
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE"
Councillors considered this consultation and
agreed the response, which is appended to the minutes
135/02 TO CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING PLANNING APPLICATIONS RELATING TO BLACKFORD FARM:
BDB 54510, BDB 54511/12, and
BDB 54507/8, enclosing links and converting car
port/stable to provide playroom with bedrooms over
Councillors considered these applications to
which they had
NO OBJECTIONS
136/02 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR WESTRIDGE,
ANDOVER ROAD:
BDB 54575, conversion of
existing building into four dwellings
Councillors considered this application to
which they had
NO OBJECTIONS
BDB 54577 erection of a two
storey five bedroom house.
Councillors considered this application to
which they had the following comment
OBJECTION, unless the roof
height is reduced from 9 Metres to at least 8.2 Metres in line with the old
"Westridge" house
For the following reasons
The old "Westridge" house is 8.2 Metres high and it should
not be dominated by this new house.
The adjacent property at Quarter Acre has a lower roofline.
The average house height in this area is 7.3 Metres and this is
recorded in the Highclere Village Design Statement
The meeting was then closed at 9.00 p.m.
The next full Council will be held on 14 January at 7.30pm in Highclere
Village Hall
Highclere Parish Council's response to consultation paper:
Review of planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure
Q1 Should the Council insist
on draft legal agreements being in place, or negotiations being far enough
advanced for the Development Control Committee to be informed of the likely
scale of contributions, before applications are reported to Committee ?
Yes, The Council should insist on draft legal agreement being in place,
and negotiations well advanced before the Planning Committee considers
applications, but No, to informing the committee of the likely level of
contribution to avoid an unsatisfactory development being "bought"
Q2 Should local communities,
including Parish Councils, be given greater opportunities to input to the
negotiation of planning agreements? Would the use of the existing consultation
process for commenting on planning applications be an appropriate vehicle to
achieve this?
Yes The ODPM sets out in the rural White Paper and Quality Parish and Town
Council consultation paper that it is committed to giving parishes a greater
role to lead and invigorate their communities.
Parish Councils in many ways are similar to the statutory
consultees. There is a requirement in
primary legislation for a local planning authority to notify a parish council
of any relevant planning application if requested to do so by the Parish
Council, and the local authority must take into account any such
representation. The existing
consultation process for commenting on planning approvals undertaken by Basingstoke
and Deane Borough Council however does not acknowledge that that it must take
the Parish Council's comments into account and if the same degree of
complacency is applied to input on negotiation of planning agreements (S106),
Parish Councils will lose faith in the system.
What is meant by local communities?
These should all by represented via the Parish or Town Council
Q3 Is there a need for the
Council to make information on planning obligations more widely available? If
so, how can this best be made readily available to those who may have an
interest in the information?
No but planning obligations should be more easily available
to Parish Councils. A list of all
obligations within the Parish should be supplied to the Parish Council. Parish Councils embarking on Parish Plans
will find this useful. However planning
obligations should not be more widely known. We are concerned that the public will see S106 agreements as
bribes, as indeed do some Councillors.
Q4 Other than for open space
or play equipment, are there other areas where the Council should consider
requiring developers to pay bonds in order to ensure that work is completed in
line with a planning agreement, or commuted sums to cover future maintenance?
Are there control mechanisms other than payment of interest or index linking
which the Council ought to use within planning agreements?
Yes, Bonds could be used to ensure compliance with conditions placed on
planning approvals especially landscaping, hedge replacement, TPOs etc. Other areas are footways, cycle ways and
road improvements. Bonds should be
forfeited if planning enforcement becomes necessary. The amount of a bond could be apportioned between original
contractor and whoever completes the development
Q5 Are the occupants per
dwellings figures from the Adopted Plan still the most relevant basis on which
contributions should be calculated?
Yes but Para 6.2 is most important and should be widely publicised: -
It is important to note at the outset that
these “standards” are the starting point for negotiations with applicants. For
the majority of the standards they are not, nor should they be, rigidly applied
to all sites as it is the particular circumstances of each development
proposal, including its location, the nature of the development proposed, and
the existing level and type of facilities and infrastructure in the area that
will determine the extent to which additional facilities or contributions are
justified. The exception may be for contributions justified on a Borough wide
basis, where contributions are sought from each and every site to an overall
strategic objective (an example of this is the Borough’s swimming strategy).
Q6 Do you support the
approach of pooling contributions within specified geographical areas? Do you
have any views on which areas other than leisure facilities this approach could
be used for?
Yes Completely support the approach of pooling contributions as otherwise
we will end up with many "piecemeal" offerings of little value to the
community, but it depends how big the geographical are is. It should not be too large.
Q7 What are your views on
the order in which the list of priorities is expressed?
Regeneration initiatives
Transport
Affordable and key worker housing
Community Safety
Leisure and Recreation
Social Services and Health Care
Education
Rural Needs
Training and Employment
Waste Management/Recycling
Information Technology
Are there any areas missing from the list, or, alternatively should some areas be omitted?
Firstly It must be recognised that there is a different priority for a rural
area as opposed to an urban area, and that many people migrate to rural areas
to get away from urban life.
Surely government through taxation funds some of the areas, and these
should be omitted.
In the Parish of Highclere the first priorities are Community safety,
rural needs, leisure and recreation, and the transport.
Q8 Do you support the
principle of ensuring that new development, and the facilities or
infrastructure it may bring, should benefit existing communities through
regeneration based initiatives?
Yes
Q9 Do you support the
Council’s work with Hampshire County Council to identify a consistent approach
to developer contributions for Transport across the County?
Not really, as transport requirements across the county should
be funded from taxation
Q10 The ‘hierarchy approach’
to the provision of leisure and recreation facilities is proposed to give a
geographical basis for the level and type of contributions to be sought for
those uses. Do you support the principle of this approach?
Yes
Q11 Are the level and type of
proposed contributions towards open space and community buildings and community
workers acceptable? Are there any amendments which you consider should be made?
? Without a detailed analysis of
the level of contributions as a percentage of the value of the contract as well
as knowing how many such contributions are needed to build a new community
building no comment can be made. E.g.
how many new houses are required to be built in Highclere to fund anew village
hall?
Q12 With the recent completion
of the Aquadrome, should the Borough Council continue to seek contributions
towards the Swimming Strategy on a Borough wide basis or should more
specifically defined geographic areas be identified from which contributions
would be sought?
Contributions should be sought from more specifically defined
geographical areas as Highclere residents find travelling to Basingstoke is a
difficult journey with no bus, no train, and poor road link.
Q13 Do you support the
principle of seeking to meet local priorities in rural areas through
negotiation with developers and the local community? If your answer is yes, how
should this be undertaken? What more could the Council do in areas where the
level of new development, and thus contributions, may be limited?
Yes via the Parish Council through a parish plan (accumulated cash
contributions from a number of developments to finance needs identified within
the parish plan). Top up from a central
fund or could consider cross subsidies from high development areas to those
where development is low.
Q14 Would you support the
proposal to seek the identification of appropriate sites for telecommunications
equipment from the outset of new developments, through planning briefs or the
inclusion of clauses in legal agreements?
Yes We have grave concerns over telecom masts
Q15 Is the Council’s overall
approach to planning obligations clearly enough explained in this consultation
paper? Are there any areas where further explanation would be helpful?
No it is not clear, it needs to expand on areas where the Parish
Council would have a say
What is a "developer" (as distinct from a public works
contractor or house builder)?
What is a new development.
Consider the two examples:
What % of contract value would be appropriate as a planning
obligation/contribution for the different cases?