Minutes of the Meeting of Kidlington Parish Council

Minutes of the Meeting of Kidlington Parish Council held at Exeter Hall Oxford Road Kidlington on Thursday April 7th 2005

Present: Councillor A Graham (chair) Councillor D Betts Councillor S Bird Councillor S Colveson Councillor R Laynes Councillor S Laynes Councillor D Rae Councillor C Robins Councillor J Ruiz

Apologies:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Atsoparthis, J Garlick, A Moss, Carole Pack, Chris Pack, and J Stansby.

Declaration of Interest:

Councillor C Robins declared a prejudicial interest in the general election debate issue on the grounds that he was a committee member of churches together, that was sponsoring the event and his wife was treasurer of the group.

53. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday January 20th 2005 were agreed and signed as a true record.

54. Minutes of Committees

Consideration was given to the minutes of the following committees which were confirmed and adopted.

a) Environment and Amenities Committee – 27th January 2005

i) Football Development Plan (Minutes 43)

It was noted that the estimated cost of the consultant for the football development plan had been given as £4000 where as only £2000 had been put into the budget.

It was confirmed that there was no definitive cost at the present time and when the full cost was known the Policy/Finance Committees would be asked to approve any additional payment over and above the budgeted amount.

b) Exeter Hall Management Committee – 3rd February 2005

c) Planning Committee – 10th February 2005

d) Policy Committee – 17th February 2005

i) Parish Allowances (Minute 43)

1 The Council RESOLVED to support the recommendation from Policy Committee not to introduce an allowance scheme at the current time with recognition that there may be circumstances in the future where such an introduction may be appropriate. The matter would be kept under review and looked at again in October 2005 where it would be possible to incorporate into the budget should such a decision be made.

e) Finance Committee – 24th February 2005

f) Extra Policy Committee – 24th February 2005

g) Planning Committee – 3rd March 2005

h) Environmental and Amenities Committee – 17th March 2005

It was noted that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 31st March 2005 had not been circulated and agreed to defer consideration of the minutes of that committee to the Annual Council Meeting to be held in May.

55. Annual Parish Meeting

The Committee had been circulated with the minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Thursday 10th March 2005 and received an update on progress regarding questions raised.

1. Skate Park (Minute 8 (1))

The Council noted the youngsters who attended the meeting of the Environmental and Amenities Committee on 17th March. They were to attend the Stratfield Brake Management Committee on 20th April to seek the Management Committee’s agreement to consider the placement of a skate park on the Stratfield Brake site.

2. Building Works (Minute 8(2))

The letters from Mr Gibbons concerning building debris on pavements had been passed to the County Highways with a request for something to be done.

3. Parking Issues (Minute 8(3))

Mr Illot had been advised that his comments relating to parking issues were to be referred to the Traffic Advisory Committee meeting in May.

4. Hazel Walk Allotments (Minute 8(a))

The Clerk had contacted Cherwell District Council and been told that there would be no objection by the property services department to a fence being put up by the Parish Council adjoining the pathway. However, the advice was to check with the Planning Officer to enquire if planning permission was required.

The Clerk had also contacted Scottish and Southern Energy regarding responsibility for the sub station and was awaiting a response.

5. Exeter Hall Hearing Loop (Minute 8 (d))

The Exeter Hall caretaker had advised that although there were sometimes complaints about the loop system other users had no problems. It was suggested that someone with a hearing aid be asked to test the loops within the various areas of the hall.

2 6. Dog Bins (Minute 8(e))

The Parish Rangers were to carry out a review of dog bin provisions.

The Chair commented that as there had been some interesting items for presentation at the Parish meeting it was disappointing how few members of the public had attended.

56. Authorisation of Cheques signed since last Council meeting

The Council ratified authorisation of cheques written between 12th January 2005 and 24th March 2005.

Co-operative Bank plc (Current Account) £69,496.93 National Westminister Bank £698.37 Payroll Payments Report £39,069.45

57. South East Development Plan Consultation

The Council was invited to respond to the consultation document on the South East plan no later than 15th April. The matter had been initially discussed at the Extraordinary Policy Committee meeting on 24th February and Councillor Robins had submitted a draft for the Council’s consideration.

Cherwell District Council had held a seminar on the subject the previous evening which had been attended by Councillor Ruiz and the Clerk.

Councillor Ruiz was asked to report on the seminar. The Council was also circulated with a copy of the District Council response to the South East Plan handed out at the seminar.

Councillor Ruiz reported that she had felt that the District Council was encouraging development at the southern end of Cherwell District and did not understand why it was not further promoting development in Banbury.

The Chair reported on an invitation received from the University land agent at the Begbroke Science Park to which he had attended with Councillor Atsoparthis. Also present were representatives from Begbroke and Yarnton Parish Councils. The agent had claimed that because of specific mention of the University within the Central Oxfordshire Region section of the plan the University was under an obligation to put forward a proposal. A plan had been shown to those in attendance covering a considerable area around the Science Park. The Chair thought that this was a fragile green belt area but if the plan was accepted it would be important for Kidlington to fight for the appropriate infrastructure. He hoped that such a development would not erode the boundaries between the communities.

The District Council planning officers had stated at their seminar that there was a problem with identification of land in that it then became a target for building regardless of need.

Councillor Robins who as a County Councillor was aware of the County Council discussions on the consultation commented that Banbury was to receive considerable further expansion during the lifetime of the new structure plan to 2016. The County Council had felt that development within this plan would take Banbury to its natural limit.

It was also noted that the specified Central Oxfordshire Region did not go as far as Banbury - only touching as far as Bicester within the Cherwell District.

Bicester was pressuring to ease off on the amount of the development after the new structure plan to allow the infrastructure to catch up. 3 However, the County Council continued to reject the green belt developments.

Councillor Robins circulated a draft plan based on the discussions at Policy Committee and explained that the Committee had accepted that the County towns needed breathing space but had thought that all the development should be elsewhere. The committee had therefore recommended a hybrid solution - the important criteria being that if need for development in the green belt was proven it should be limited. He supported the Chair that communities must be kept separate.

The Policy Committee had also noted the current imbalance between employment in the South and housing in the North and recognised a need to address these by concentrating future housing to areas with employment; and to bring more employment to the existing developed areas.

It was also felt that under policy CO4 of the consultation that the comment of development in the green belt this should be mainly reserved for affordable homes.

It was important that the infrastructure supported the development and that if the Kidlington development was accepted a railway station was required.

It was suggested that the District Council seminar had commented that there was too much reliance on developer funding of infrastructure; and also noted that Oxfordshire County Council worked hard to extract contribution from developers for necessary areas though comment was made that health service provision was not normally part of such contribution.

The Parish Council recognised the Grenoble Road Southern Oxfordshire development within the green belt as an area closely attached to Oxford.Kidlington was detached from Oxford.

Development at Bicester also affected Kidlington due to the lack of employment opportunities in Bicester and the consequent pressures on the A34.

It had been noted that the District Council was requiring 30% affordable build in contrast to the 50% request from Oxford City that had been rejected by the Inspector reporting on the Oxford City Local Plan.

It was suggested that 30 to 35% affordable housing provision was the maximum that could be demanded otherwise section 106 agreements were being squeezed into a negative effect. More strategic services should be funded through rates. There was an extensive debate on the contributions to services from planning matters.

It was noted that although employment had not caught up with housing in Bicester, land allocated for employment had been purchased but not developed. The developer may be hoping to use this for housing.

There was limited land within Kidlington for development but possibilities within surrounding areas that could impact on Kidlington.

Villages close to the southern Oxford (Grenoble Road) site were forming themselves into a lobbying group and it was suggested that Kidlington combine with the Cherwell Vale Parishes to ensure a watching brief on plans. Kidlington should become more pro-active for the future.

When determining the type of housing for a community comment was made that villages should be looking at the current council tax bandings and looking to fill the gaps. This was a suggested principle that ought to be adopted.

4 Affordable housing was broader that social housing. It was known that Oxford City wanted predominantly social housing.

The Council was concerned about three different aspects of the consultation document - being the green belt, the affordable housing provision, and the s106 contributions for infrastructure.

There was uncertainty as to who was responsible for reviewing the green belt which was infact the green belt for Oxford City.

RESOLVED to submit a response to the South East Regional Assembly on the consultation document in accord with the submitted draft, but to extend comment on policy CO2 that the Parish Council supported the view of Cherwell District Council for a concentration of development on Oxford City plus Didcot plus a southern extension of the city boundary.

The Clerk to research whether the Cherwell Valley Parishes were still active and to contact them and suggest setting up a group to monitor the plans.

58. General Election Debate

(Councillor Robins withdrew from the meeting)

The Council had received a request from the secretary of “Churches Together” in Kidlington. With the declaration of a general election of 5th May, the intention was for the churches to convene a public meeting to which all the local constituency candidates would be invited to answer questions. The request was to use Exeter Hall and for a concessionary rate.

No dates or time had yet been set but it was reported that funding of the hire could be from the chairman’s allowance.

RESOLVED to allow the use of Exeter Hall for a debate with the general election candidates and that a concession be granted paid out of the chairman’s allowance.

“Churches Together” be asked that all candidates - including those from minority groups - be invited to attend that proof of that invitation be forwarded to the council.

(Cllr Robins returned to the meeting)

59. Gosford & Water Eaton contribution to Stratfield Brake

The Council had been circulated with a resolution passed by Gosford & Water Eaton Parish Council on 5th October and noted the attendance of representatives of that Parish Council at the Extraordinary Policy Committee held on 24th February.

The Council was asked to consider the following requests by Gosford & Water Eaton Council

a) The specification clause 4.5 - remove last sentence refunding. This sentence referred to a contribution from both Parish Councils in accordance with schedule 2 of the specification if the annual surplus of the facilities was insufficient to meet the emergency expenditure.

There was concern that removal of this sentence would put Gosford and Water Eaton Parish Council in default of their obligation under the lease and Councillors were unhappy with the deletion of this sentence.

b) Schedule 1. Amend – Agreed voting rights. A proportional voting right had been established at the outset of the facility to protect Kidlington Parish Council 5 regarding expenditure in excess of £10,000 where the Gosford & Water Eaton contribution would affectively be capped at £5,000 and excess expenditure could be voted through by representatives of that Parish with an implication on the Kidlington Parish Council budget.

The voting rights as incorporated in schedule 1 allowed for voting representation from Cherwell District Council. The voting right proportions therefore required amendment.

c) Schedule 2. Negotiate a new funding agreement based on:

i/ equal per capita payment for each parish, or ii/ maximum levels of contributions for each parish based on for example, on reasonable negotiated percentage of precept for each parish.

The Parish Council could not accept the principle of precept proportion but discussed the option of per capita payment.

The Council had been circulated with a schedule of the revenue loss break down and contributions by the two parishes that had been created at the inception and noted that the break even point was revenue loss of £62,050. The current budgeted deficit was more than £52,000 - sitting approximately £10,000 below the break even level. If an adjustment was to be made an up to date break down of the current population would be required.

It was felt that amendment to a per capita basis would be acceptable to Kidlington Parish Council. It was therefore RESOLVED

a/ to retain the final sentence of the specification clause 4.5 b/ to amend the voting rights contained in schedule 1 para.2.2 to read - for those matters which relate to revenue and capital funding, the voting rights shall be proportioned as follows in accordance with the levels of responsibility retained by each body for payments of the operation deficit as outlined in schedule 2 till parity is achieved between the parishes of Kidlington and Gosford & Water Eaton. Kidlington Parish representatives 51% : Gosford and Water Eaton Parish representatives 49%. c/ to accept that schedule 2 para. 1 to read that contribution towards the annual operation deficit be on a per capita basis (the actual wording to be determined).

The future possibilities of representation on the management committee would be referred back to policy committee at a future date. The resolution as above would be forwarded to Cherwell District Council for comment.

60. Questions to Chair

1. Continental Market – Councillor Rae asked if the chair was aware that an operator was seeking to negotiate a continental market in the centre during December. This would involve road closure of High Street which could be achieved on a one off basis and would be during Friday/Saturday/Sunday though not necessarily all three.

The Parish Council had been asked for its support and though the Council would prefer such a market sooner than December, it was AGREED that the Council welcomed a trial of a continental market as soon as possible but requested that the District Council carry out consultation with the existing market traders.

61. Reports to Council 6 1. Kaleidoscope Centre - Councillor Rae reported on the rescue package by the County Council to retain the Kaleidoscope centre with some changes. The Administrative Assistant’s role would remain but the working assistant post would be removed. It had just been confirmed that the centre’s manager was taking on the role of co-ordinator which was for 20 hours a week for the time being.

There would be re-distribution of crèche facilities and reduced opening times. However, the centre was thankful to be retained.

2. Emergency Numbers - Councillor Ruiz reported that a booklet now rested in the Parish Council office provided by the County Council emergency plan officer giving a phone number for major incident alert for the use of public service authorities.

3. Litter Blitz – Councillor Ruiz reminded Councillors that the litter blitz was to take place on Saturday 16th April to clear litter along the canal. Members were asked to meet at Yarnton bridge at 10.30am. Apologies were offered from Councillors R and S Laynes and Councillor Robins.

4. Kidlington in Bloom Launch – Councillor Ruiz reported that she and Councillor Carole Pack together with Alan Walton of the gardening society had planted sun flower seeds for distribution on the 7th May Launch.