PC Minutes 2016

PAVENHAM PARISH COUNCIL Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held in the Village Hall on Thursday 21st April 2016 at 8.00 p.m. Present: J M Stamford, Chairman of the Parish Council (in the chair) and 45 parishioners Dr. P.R. Sharpe, Parish Council ClerK, in attendance The chairman welcomed everybody to the meeting and thanked them for attending. The day of the meeting was the day of the Queen’s 90th birthday and those present toasted Her Majesty with champagne kindly provided by Jim & Denise Russell. 1. Apologies for Absence: were received from Mr Greenwood, Mr T Beazley, and Borough Councillor Mrs P Olney 2. Minutes of the last Annual Parish Meeting held on 29th April 2015 The Minutes of the meeting held on 29th April 2015 were approved and signed by the chairman on the proposal of Mr Evans, seconded by Mrs. Sturgess. 3. Matters Arising from the meeting held on 29th April 2015 There were no matters arising which were not due to be covered by other items on the agenda. 4. Chairman’s Report and Review of the 2015/16 year Copies of Mr Stamford’s report had been distributed to every household in the village prior to the meeting. He went through the report at the meeting and highlighted various matters. He said the past year had been a hard-worKing year for all councillors. In addition to the normal council business the PC had to deal with extra work associated with preparing the Neighbourhood Plan. The PC had heard earlier this weeK that the BC’s Local Plan which it was currently preparing will be extended from 2032 to 2035. Part of the extension was due to the need to review all the many extra sites across the borough (including in Pavenham) which had been submitted following the BC’s second “Call for Sites” in autumn 2015. The chairman re-assured everybody that the PC will ensure that the second round of sites submitted in Pavenham will receive the same degree of scrutiny given to those in the first round – namely consideration at a parish meeting when all parishioners can express their views followed by consideration at a PC meeting when the PC will decide on the comments it submits to the BC on the sites. The BC had not yet given a timetable for the submission of comments and it was expected that it will be delayed until it has considered whether to change its policy and opt for one of the new settlements which had been proposed thereby possibly allowing it to reduce its requirements for new development in small rural villages such as Pavenham. (The new settlements proposed include up to 6,000 homes at Milton Ernest, and up to 4,000 at each of Sharnbrook and Wyboston). The PC considered it was sensible to delay holding a parish meeting to consider the new sites until the BC had issued its timetable. The chairman said that in view of the foregoing he was intending that there be only general discussion at this meeting on the new sites submitted rather than a detailed consideration of each site. The Steering Group was maKing good progress in preparing the Neighbourhood Plan for the village and had caught up with most of the villages which had started earlier than Pavenham. With regard to community involvement, 24 volunteers had helped Jane Roff earlier this month at a litter picK she had organised. 34 bags of rubbish had been collected. The Chairman thanKed Jane and all the volunteers. ThanKs were also due to Thomas and Ben Beazley, Tony Roff, Jim Russell, Robert Scoley, Chris Fiddes, and Christine Sturgess for taKing down the dilapidated fence along the Causeway and erecting a new fence over the last two weekends. There was still a small amount of work to do and it was hoped to do that over the coming weeKend. Speeding was still a concern. Although it had accepted the PC’s offer to contribute towards average speed cameras and indicated that the scheme would proceed during the latter part of 2015, the BC had decided that in view of a reduced grant from central government it had to suspend all new speed camera projects for the time being. The PC had decided however to continue to raise the £10,000 it had offered towards the project through an extra £2,000 per year on the Parish Precept – the 2016/17 year being the second year of the extra Precept. With regard to the PC’s request for a 40 mph speed limit along the Bedford Road from the village hall to the bend at East End, the BC informed the PC that the police had objected to the scheme but at a meeting with the Deputy Chief Constable he said he would support the scheme. The PC had agreed to contribute £5,000 towards flashing speed signs along the length of the road in question. Broadband had become an ongoing problem but BT has now programmed improvements to the service to the main part of Pavenham in the 3rd quarter of 2016 to the 1st quarter of 2017 with that part of the village from the mobile home park eastwards 6 months later. There followed discussion on • who was providing the flashing speed signs along the proposed new 40 mph limit (the chairman said the PC had agreed to contribute £5000 towards the cost of two signs). • that it looKed liKe the village will finally get its broadband service improved after years of complaining • what the broadband speed will be after the upgrade (it was hoped it will be about 20mbps although David Smith warned that BT was only upgrading the connection to the local cabinets and that the old existing copper wire from the cabinet to individuals’ premises will not be replaced). • whether a 20 mph speed limit, which had been suggested for the centre part of the village in the past, was ever liKely to happen (the chairman said such a limit would not be enforceable) • how the PC was raising the cash for the average speed cameras (the chairman said the PC raised the Precept by £2,000 in the 2015/16 year and will continue to collect that amount per year until the £10,000 contribution towards the scheme had been raised – the amount raised being ring-funded as a reserve for the project). • whether it would be in order for the PC to asK for donations towards the average speed camera project (the chairman said he did not think it would be appropriate until the BC confirmed the project will go ahead) 5. Update report by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group on its progress in developing a Neighbourhood Plan for Pavenham – including preliminary consideration of the potential development sites in Pavenham submitted to the Borough Council following its second “Call for Sites” in Autumn 2015. In the absence of the project leader, Hugh Josty, David Evans gave a presentation summarising why the PC had decided to prepare the Plan and what the Steering Group had been doing: • The reason for preparing the Plan was to give the village more control over any development which might taKe place in the parish. Without a Plan it would be difficult to prevent developers obtaining planning consent on areas parishioners did not want to see built on. • Most of the surrounding villages were preparing their own Plans • During the past year the N Plan Steerig Group had held a launch event, circulated a questionnaire to everybody in the village eligible to vote (for which there had been a very high response of almost 70% - the average for most villages being about 40%), analysed the responses, drafted a Vision Statement and Plan Objectives and begun to formulate policies to meet those objectives. There were 6 worKing groups drafting policies on various sectors to be included in the Plan, such as housing, employment, getting about, and the environment. • The responses showed that parishioners had a preference for small developments with small 2/3 bed homes, did not want large houses or large industrial developments, wanted new development to be sympathetic with the Conservation Area, and for the Natural Environment to be enhanced. • It is planned to hold a drop-in event on 17th/18th June when parishioners can give feedback on what the Steering Group had done to date. There were then questions and discussions on various matters including: • The standing of the final plan – if it is approved by the Inspector and at the Referendum to be held in the village it will become a legal document and the BC planners will have to take account of it when considering planning applications • Whether the Plan will be reviewed before 2035 – yes probably in 5 to 10 years • Can it be used at Appeals – yes • Why did the BC asK for more potential development sites last autumn – the BC considered that insufficient (suitable) sites had been submitted in its first call for sites to meet its projected housing demand. The second call for sites produced proposals for a number of new settlements with up to 6,000 homes. As a result of new sites being submitted the BC is reviewing its policies including whether there should be as many new homes in smaller villages as it had originally proposed. • Whether there will be a need for another questionnaire to survey opinion on the new sites submitted in the village – not sure yet but the Plan will have to show that they have been sufficiently well considered. • Carlton has been earmarKed for a large number of new dwellings which could create much more traffic through Pavenham over which the village has no control • Can the Plan conflict with the BC Plan – no and the Inspector who considers the submission draft will ensure that it does not • Where did the pressure come from for the second call for sites – the BC wanted more than were offered in the first call for sites • The 10/20 homes the BC originally proposed for Pavenham is very modest in relation to the large numbers proposed for Clapham and Great Barford and even the approx.

Load more