LEONARD STANLEY PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Leonard Stanley Parish Council Meeting held on Tuesday 6th March 2018 at 7.30 pm in the Village Hall.

Present:- Councillors R Bayliss (Chairman), J Bogdiukiewicz, C Connett, G Davies, S Davies, P Herbert and S Lydon.

Also Present: - Mrs P Fawkes and District Cllr Nigel Studdert-Kennedy (arrived at Agenda at Item 27/18).

Mrs Fawkes gave the Council some feedback on how the road closure (for sewer repairs) at the Fleece Triangle, Stanley Downton affected the residents of Beards Mill.

19/18. Apologies for absence:. Apologies were accepted from Cllr Stuart Craddock and County Cllr Loraine Patrick.

20/18. Declarations of Interest in Agenda Items

Cllr Phil Herbert declared an interest in agenda item 27/18i for the White Hart Inn and Mercers House.

Cllr Steve Lydon declared an interest in agenda item 27/18i for Mercers House.

21/18. To approve the minutes from the Parish Council Meeting held on Tuesday 6th February 2018 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on Thursday 22 nd February 2018

The minutes were approved and signed as a true record.

22/18. To receive an update / reports from the County and District Councillors

A report was received from District Cllr Steve Lydon and circulated to the Members prior to the meeting. (See Appendix 1).

Cllr Steve Lydon also advised the Council:

• Forthcoming road closure for Ryeford Road South. • Issues regarding the works in Stonehouse High Street.

District Cllr Nigel Studdert-Kennedy reported on a meeting he attended, with regards to improving Tourism within the Stonehouse Cluster.

23/18. To receive an update from the Clerk. i) Pavilion – The Football Club confirm that the majority of work has been carried out and they are satisfied with the standard of the work. ii) Highways – The meeting was attended by Paul Helbrow (Highways Manager), Cllr Sue Davies, County Cllr Loraine Patrick and Irena Litton (Clerk).

Summary of issues raised: • Surfacing repair outside the Village Hall. • Possibility of creating new car parking spaces in Church Road. • Building up of the kerb by the War Memorial. • Missing ‘flashing school light’ in Bath Road. • Possibility of creating a temporary 20mph zone in Bath Road, during school drop off and pick up times. • Marsh Lane – surfacing. • Marsh Lane/Marsh Road junction – white marking require moving (as per Planning Condition) and the dropped kerbs on the corner are not in a suitable location. • Overgrown hedges. iii) Mankley Field

• A resident of Marsh Lane has requested a meeting where a representative of the Parish Council, Barratts and the District Council be invited. The Clerk to make further enquiries on the issues that she wishes to raise. CLERK

• District Council have agreed to install an additional street name sign in Marsh Lane.

iv) BT Kiosk at Seven Waters

The clerk has completed the necessary paperwork to adopt the kiosk. BT have agreed to supply a paint kit.

It was agreed to put a note in the newsletter to request suggestions for its use. CLERK

24/18 To receive an update on the Project List i) Playing Field

The S.106 application for Phase One of the works has been submitted. The clearance work has begun including the felling of several of the dead trees. Western Power will fell the other dead trees that are close to the overhead power lines. One of the benches at the old Memorial Garden is beyond repair; the other bench will be relocated.

The remainder of the work for Phase One will be carried out soon. ii) Village Hall

A meeting took place with the Village Hall Management Committee on Thursday 15 th March 2018. The notes from this meeting were distributed to the Members present.

25/18. To consider a request from the WI to decorate on or around the War Memorial with knitted poppies.

A request has been received for knitted poppies to be used in the commemoration of the 100 th anniversary of the ending of the First World War. The idea will be to use the poppies to decorate either the War Memorial itself or the area around the War Memorial. (Further suggestion, is to ask the school children to add a name to each of the poppies, from the names inscribed on the memorial).

The Council approved the request; for the WI to decorate on or around the War Memorial with knitted poppies.

26/18. Financial Issues i) To authorise payments in accordance with the RFO Report

Summary of expenditure for March 2018:- Description Total Paid Out Power of Authority Administration £1243.88 LGA 1972 s.112(2), LG (FP)A 1933 s.5, LGA 1972s.111, LGA 1972 s133, LGA 1972 s.142, LG&Rating Act 1997 s.31 and LGA 1972 s.143. Playing Fields £ 20.00 LG(MP)A 1976 s.19(3) Village Maintenance £ 24.00 Litter A 1983 ss.5, LG(MP)A 1976 s.19(3) and Highways A 1980 s.96. Pavilion £ 327.89 LGA 1894 s.8(4)

Total Payments £1615.77 The Council approved the accounts for payment . ii) To appoint an Internal Auditor

The Council approved the appointment of Ian Crowe, as the Internal Auditor. iii) To approve the Financial Risk Review

The Council approved the Financial Risk Review.

27/18. Planning i) To consider plans received

S.18/0311/FUL White Hart Inn, The Street - Erection of ground floor and first floor extensions, ground

The Members noted the objections to the original application (which were not available when they agreed to support the original application) and the reasons for the Planning Officer subsequent refusal. The Members did not believe that this new application addresses those concerns raised or the reasons for refusal with regards the original application S.17/2035/FUL.

The Members agreed to object to this application; on the same grounds for refusal as quoted for S.17/2035/FUL:-

1. The proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site contrary to points five, seven and nine of Core Policy CP14 and point three of Delivery Policy EI10 of the Adopted Local Plan, November 2015 and contrary to the aims of chapter seven of the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable overbearing effect and an unacceptable impact upon privacy for local residents contrary to point one of Delivery Policy ES3 of the Adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015. 3. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact upon highway safety contrary to point five of Delivery Policy ES3 of the Adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015. 4. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to ensure that the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable smell or fumes contrary to point one of Delivery Policy ES3 of the Adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

S.18/0247/HHOLD 43 Brockley Road - Single storey rear extension, replacement garage and internal remodelling to the existing house

The Council agreed to support this application.

S.18/0294/LBC & S.18/0293/HHOLD Church Villa, The Street. - Demolition of existing extensions and the construction of a new single storey and double storey extension.

The Council agreed to offer ‘no comment’ to these applications.

S.18/0329/LBC Mercers House, The Street. - Internal and external alterations and repairs

The Council agreed to support this application.

S.18/0405/HHOLD 30 Seven Waters, Bath Road. - Lowering of part front garden to provide off road parking. Construction of a retaining wall with access steps to property.

The Council agreed to support this application. ii) To receive a progress report from the Clerk on applications already responded to:-

S.18/0051/HHOLD 6 Wesley Road - Extension to form new garden room. Permitted.

S.18/0023/FUL Workshop Downton Farm Stanley Downton - The demolition of existing industrial building (class B2 use) and erection of one single dwelling with parking and access. Pending. 28/18. Correspondence –

• The Toddlers Group – sent in a Thank You card.

29/18. Councillors Submissions

• White Van spotted on several occasions touring the village and witnessed ‘skip dipping’. • Dog attack reported. Occurred in a footpath, in a field off Gypsy Lane, where ‘dog training’ was happening.

There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 9.10 pm

The next meeting of the Parish Council is to be held in the Village Hall on Tuesday 3rd April 2018 at 7.30pm.

Appendix 1

LSPC SL District Council Report March 18

Council Tax

On Thursday February 22 Stroud District Council set its Council Tax for the forthcoming financial year. Council Tax is split between the county council, Constabulary, the six district and borough councils in the county and the dozens of smaller town and parish councils. I set out below the council tax bills in Gloucestershire

If you live in , your council tax bill for 2018/19, in a Band D property, will be £1,655.03. The bill for a Band D home in Borough will be £1,661.71 , excluding parishes. In Stroud, a Band D property will pay £1,660.20 , excluding parishes. Forest of Dean will charge a Band D home there will pay £1,632.53 , excluding parishes. In the Cotswolds a Band D household will be billed £1,585.10 , excluding parishes. In , the average Band D home will be paying £1,573.06, excluding parishes.

Neighbourhood Development Plans

The February 22 SDC full council also approved the Stonehouse Neighbourhood Plan following a local referendum. More and more of the District is now covered by NDPs. These have tended to be the larger Towns ie Stroud, Durlsey and Stonehouse. I have raised again that for small parishes to be able to produce one they need greater resourcing from Govt. The plans though are supposed to set out where a local community wants development not where they don’t want it.

Central Garage Kings Stanley Some good news on the planning front to this this ongoing saga, ie of the houses built now following the agreed permission. Despite technically addressing the reasons to show they should get retrospective permission, painting the adjoining party wall, white, opening of windows inwardly and concrete capping a part of the back garden which is contaminated the committee turned down the retrospective application. It will now go to a further appeal in June. We are still waiting on the County Council to determine whether the whole pavement can be designated as a public right of way which would further strengthen our case against the current buildings.

Dog Fouling

I recently attended along with Nigel and other District Cllrs and excellent briefing on the work of the Environmental Health Team. One topic that was covered was the increasing problem of dog fouling. I set out below the information that was covered on this emotive topic below- I don’t have to pick up Yes you do! Failing to pick up your dog's faeces is an offence. The Council can serve a Fixed Penalty Notice allowing the offender to pay a £75 fine or can prosecute in the Magistrates’ Court with a maximum fine of £1,000. Once the waste has been bagged it can be discarded No it can't. It is astonishing that people take the trouble to bag dog waste and then throw it in a hedge, a tree or on the ground. This is a littering offence and liable to the same penalties as above.

More dog waste bins would solve the problem It is not uncommon to see dog fouling very close to the bins. In our experience people are either "picker uppers" or they are not – the presence of a bin makes no difference as they seem to think they are above the law. The Council has no duty to provide dog waste bins but has provided over 500 across the District and spends thousands of pounds every year emptying them. They simply cannot be everywhere! If there isn’t a dog bin or a litter bin nearby then take the waste home and dispose of it within your household refuse.

The Council doesn’t do anything

The Council provides dog waste bins, empties them, provides signage, undertakes patrols, provides targeted stencilling of hotspots, serves Fixed Penalty Notices, takes prosecutions, arranges additional street cleans for problem areas and follows up all complaints. Dog fouling is not the fault of the Council – it is 100% down to irresponsible dog owners!

More fines should be issued

To issue a fine an offence has to be witnessed and the offender identified. If a Council Officer such as a Dog Warden sees the offence it will be followed up – however, they cannot be everywhere all the time and even on targeted patrols, to see an offence is rare. If members of the public see an offence, can identify the offender and are willing to provide good evidence in the form of a simple witness statement, then the Council will issue a fine based on that evidence.

It’s only the same as cow or horse manure

No it isn’t. Dog faeces is much more dangerous and can, for example, cause toxocariasis which can cause damage to the eye and, in some cases, blindness. Young children will be more at risk as they are more likely to come into contact with the faeces and not realise the dangers.

DNA could be used DNA is only useful if there is a database to match results against. Even if it was technically and financially feasible, dog owners could not be made to have their dogs’ DNA registered on a database. In practice, the only people that would do this would be responsible dog owners and these people already pick up. Those that don’t pick up just wouldn’t register their dogs.

Use CCTV

CCTV can only be set up for dog fouling if it is "advertised" we are not allowed to use it covertly. So dog walkers would be fully aware that CCTV was in use and so would either avoid the area and displace the problem elsewhere or pick up while in range of the cameras. Existing public CCTV systems are used but identification of offenders can still be very difficult.