ROPLEY PARISH COUNCIL

Tuesday 5th March 2019 at 7.30pm in Ropley Parish Hall

MINUTES

Those in attendance:

J Culverwell (JC), D. Fielden (DF), T. Day (TD), J. Parsonson (JP), S. Perkins (SP), District Cllr C. Louisson (CL) & Becky French (BF) Clerk to the Parish Council.

1 Apologies for absence

Cllr G. Brown (GB) Chair & D. Speed (DS) , Vice Chair, J. Nops (JN) and G. Stogdon (GS)

Due to the Chair and Vice Chair being absent, it was pre-arranged that Cllr. Drew Fielding (DF) would Chair the meeting.

2 Declaration of Interest in respect of matters to be discussed.

SP declared an interest in discussions in Item 7 on Wellworth Field and abstained from voting on this motion.

3 Minutes of the Ordinary Parish Council meeting held on 5th February 2019 - to approve the minutes as a true record.

It was unanimously resolved that the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting held on 5th February 2019 be accepted as an accurate record and were duly signed by the Chairman.

4 Matters arising from the minutes.

- Orchard Gate- update CL contacted the Case Officer and is was decided to contact the enforcement tea at East Hampshire District Council to commence enforcement action, as at least 1 property is currently occupied. It was confirmed that the landscape condition is also included within proposed enforcement action.

5 Public participation in accordance with Standing Orders s3 (d – k) - A resident enquired about the possibility of planting a tree outside a residence at the Dene. There is currently a tree missing at this location, where the previous tree did not take. The resident is willing to pay for the replacement, subject to obtaining the correct permission. Councillors were supportive of the project and felt that the most appropriate department to contact would be the arborists at Hampshire County Council, who originally planted the line of tress in this location. A cherry tree or rowan species was suggested as a good tree sample for the location. - Concern was raised over the planning application at the Searle and Taylor site, in particular the lack of car-parking provision at the site. CL confirmed that the planning application will be subject to a green transport plan and any additional parking requirement will need to be part

of this plan. The Head of planning at East Hampshire District Council has agreed that CL will be involved in the application process and will be part of the decision process. The lease on the new company’s current building doesn’t finish until the end of the year, so no action is expected for 3-6months. The new company is called ‘Clever Touch’ and it runs media campaigns on behalf of large companies. - The planning application at the former Dene Stores was raised for concern. Particularly the status of the hedge which provides privacy to the adjacent property. CL confirmed that he had written to the Case Officer asking for the hedge to be temporarily protected and to enquire if a Condition could be put on it under any planning permission. It was acknowledged that enforcement of the hedge protection may be difficult. The residents were encouraged to seek solutions which could mitigate the issues they are facing. The residents were particularly concerned with plans to put windows at the rear of the properties, as these would look directly into their living space and impede their privacy. The density of the proposal is 0.5 hectare with 3 dwellings and is twice as dense as anything currently in the village. Parking is inadequate and requires owners to reverse out of the properties onto the Highway. The Parish Council will make comments, but residents were encouraged to comment on the application. - A resident suggested that an environmental report should be undertaken at the Dene Store application in order to assess the status of bats and nesting birds at the property. Councillors agreed that this should form part of the panning comments and will make a request that a type 1 ecological report is carried out. - A resident raised the issue of managing building materials at the old Dene Store site, due to space restrictions and being adjacent to the Highway. The Parish Council will ask for a Condition to be placed on the storing and delivering materials. - It was reported that a tree has come down on the footpath which runs from Webb Lane across to Harcombe House. TD to investigate.

6 Parish Council elections 2019

- The Clerk collected the nomination forms and asked for all those that are outstanding to be sent to the Clerk’s address prior to the scheduled meeting with East Hampshire District Council on 28th March, where they intend to check the forms.

7 Recreation ground (DF/GS) - DF received a letter on 8th February 2019 from Gascoigne Lane Limited concerning the overspill of mountain biking at the mound/spoil on the recreation ground into the adjoining agricultural land. The mound/spoil shares a boundary with Wellworth Field and so anyone coming down the new bike track on the mound in the direction of Gascoigne Lane ends in the adjacent field. The mountain bikers have been observed not only coming down the track into Wellworth Field but also cycling into the crops causing damage. As well as mountain bikers using the area in the summer there have also been a number of young people using the mound to sledge down in the recent snowy weather. Gascoigne Lane limited have concerns for their safety and also damage to the crops remain. As a follow-up from this correspondence, DF arranged a site meeting with GS, Mike Newman from Newman’s Fencing and a representative from Gascoigne Lane Company. It was agreed that the mound should be fenced off with ranch type fencing with an open gateway at the point of the footpath. A total of 75 metres of fencing is required. Newman’s

Fencing have quoted Mike will send a quote but it is likely to be some £1,300. SP declared an interest in this matter and abstained from voting.

Motion: to proceed with the quotation and works from Newman’s Fencing for £1340.00+ VAT to install fencing on the boundary of Ropley Recreation Ground (the waste land by the play park) and the Gascoigne Lane Field. Proposed by TD, seconded by JC and all in favour

- DF confirmed that the Recreation Ground had received the first grass cut of season from our contractors OCS. - The Clerk confirmed that the Wi-Fi link for the MUGA security system is now up and running following an issue with the units not being pre-configured as we had paid for.

8 Local Plan- Discussion - The Neighbourhood Plan team met on 18th and 25th February 2019 to discuss the Local Plan implications for Ropley. The following report was produced and circulated to Councillors at the Chairman’s request;

East Hampshire District Council – 2019 Draft Local Plan (LP) Consultation Ropley Neighbourhood Planning Team (NP) Response

The meeting agreed that in principle the Ropley NP team would respond only to Ropley specific items in the draft LP. If individuals want to give feedback on wider aspects of the plan, then they should do so as individuals. It was agreed that there are 3 areas where feedback should be given; 1. Site allocation at Ropley Dene for Site SA30 - Land at Five Acres and Aurea Norma and Woollhead’s Builder’s Yard for between 55 and 66 dwellings Page 110. 2. Proposals to amend Settlement Policy boundaries (SPB) 3. Business allocation at Home Farm

1. Site allocation at Ropley Dene for Site SA30 - Land at Five Acres and Aurea Norma and Woollhead’s Builder’s Yard for between 55 and 66 dwellings Page 110. Note there is a typo in the published draft LP which states this allocation is for between 55 and 76 dwellings. This should read 55 – 66 dwellings. Assumed - Aurea Norma and Woollhead’s Builder’s Yard is for between 5 – 10 dwellings - 5 Acres field is for between 50 – 56 dwellings Comments • These 2 sites – 5Arcres and Aurea Norma with the Builders Yard were originally submitted as 2 separate sites. The Ropley NP team would prefer to see this allocation split back into the 2 original sites.

This is due to access issues out onto the A31. If treated as 2 separate sites they could access onto the A31 from different roads. • If this site goes ahead the application must provide a way for residents to cross the busy A31 road to be able to safely access the facilities in the centre of Ropley village.

The scheme should incorporate both a crossing point for the A31 of some type and a safe footpath or right of way across Farmland from the A31 into the village centre. At present pedestrians would have to walk along the un-pavemented Petersfield Road before turning up the sunken narrow land of church Lane. Rationale for this is that the SA30 allocation has been made on the basis that Ropley Dean is a sustainable location as it sits at level 5 in the hierarchy. This is based purely on the fact that it sits 1.3km from the facilities in Ropley. If local residents are unable to access the facilities in the village other than by car this makes the rationale for it being a sustainable location unsupportable. • Development of SA30 would contradict policy RNP3 in the (assumed) made Ropley Neighbourhood Plan as the top of the 5 acres field forms an Area of Significant Visual Prominence. The policy states that ‘New development will not be permitted within Key Vistas or Areas of Significant Visual Prominence unless it can be shown that it would have no ad- verse impact on the visual appearance or character of the landscape development. It is suggested that it might be possible to mitigate this impact by ensuring that the top of the site (, most visible) is left as a green area – maybe a play area of community space. Alternatively, housing could be designed to be low rise • An allocation of this size in Ropley Dene is not aligned to local employment opportunities, despite the fact that this is part of the core objectives of the draft LP (page 12). In effect allowing this size of development in an isolated Greenfield area will create a dormitory of between 55 and 66 houses with few of the residents employed locally. This goes against the stated aim of the LP of developing housing in locations that will reduce the reliance on car travel given the minimal levels of public transport and the distance to any village facilities.

• Other infrastructure requirements that would need to be addressed are provision of Telecoms and improved Broadband as current BT provisions in Ropley are poor, with the exception of the areas of the village serviced by direct fibre to the house connections provided by Call Flow as part of the HCC and DCLG Note this comment will apply to all proposals in Ropley or Ropley Dean. • Due to the proximity of the proposed SA30 5 Acres site measures would need to be taken to avoid an adverse impact on local tourism – i.e. impact on visitors to the Mid Hants Railway, Parking, Traffic and Visual Impact.

• To avoid any impact on the dark skies, tranquillity of the area and wellbeing of the local community it should be noted that development would need to comply with RNP17 of the (assumed) made Ropley NP. The development should not include any streetlighting or obvious elements of external lighting to houses • The allocation SA30 should be challenged on the basis that the (assumed) made Ropley NP already allocated sufficient sites to more than meet the local need for housing up to 2028, based on the Housing Needs Analysis completed as part of the NP process. One of the Local Plan’s aims is to create local homes for local people. The NP Housing Needs Analysis is extrapolated forward to the end of the plan period would indicate an approximate need for between 35 -40 additional homes for local people. Allocating sites in Ropley for up to 66 new homes is over provision and unnecessary and the total EHDC wide number is above that required by Government calculation, there should be flexibility to reduce the number in Ropey to 40.

• Once the Ropley NP is made, allocations within it will make provision for an additional 27 houses in the period up to 2028. A precedent is set within the draft LP that where an area has a made NP allocations within the NP are taken into account within the draft LP. This is not the case for Ropley’s P because it is not yet “made”. However, if it is made and adopted prior to the publication of the EHDC pre-submission LP will they need to reduce housing allocations in Ropley to take into account the plans for the 27 allocated within the RNP

Clarification: We have asked this question of the EHDC team and will confirm once we have an answer.

• Under the proposed new rules 40% of the development should be of affordable housing - which would be good and should be supported.

2. Proposed changes to Settlement Policy Boundaries

The Proposed Settlement Policy Boundaries changes appear to focus on enlarging areas of the current SPB to encourage and enable Backland Development. We talked about making a major point of the concerns over the provision in Settlement Policy Boundary No. 10 which would have the effect of joining up the 2 Settlements in the village centre for the following reasons;

• This proposed change will have a potentially significant impact on the setting of, if not on the Conservation Area itself.

EHDC do not have an up to date Conservation Area appraisal for the village. As we discovered during the NP work on Non-Designated Heritage Assets Ropley's Conservation Areas have not been reviewed since 1976 which is horrendous. By law EHDC have a duty to have up to date appraisals and management plans in pace for all Conservation Areas (up to date in this context means no more than 10 years old). Clearly, they have badly failed on this as far as Ropley is concerned.

We do not believe that, given the potential risk to the South Street Conservation Area any changes should be made to SPBs in this area until a full conservation Area appraisal is completed.

• The proposed change to the SPB around the Conservation Areas seem to go against the published Core Objective B point no. 1 - Make sure new developments are appropriately distributed across the Local Planning Authority Area and are designed and located to maintain and improve the quality of the built and natural environments, particularly around historic areas and buildings, sensitive wildlife habitats and areas of high landscape value. In addition, new developments should respect the integrity of existing settlements.

• In addition, the proposed changes seem to run counter to a number of the more detailed proposed policies i.e. DM 22,34,35,36

Comments on other proposed changes to SPBs

1. Land at the Chequers Inn a. Agree with the inclusion of former highways area at the front of the site

b. We would like to see the removal of excess rear garden space along Winchester Road and Gascoigne Lane proposed by RNP2 Map B area 2.2 included within the proposed SPB changes.

2. Land rear of Watercress View a. See 1b above – do not support inclusion of this area in SPB.

3. Land rear of Gascoigne Lane a. We object to inclusion of these rear gardens into the SPB.

4. Open space rear of Rowdell cottages a. No objection b. Land adjacent to Meadow View – Map C area 4.1 RNP2 should be removed from the SPB as proposed by the RNP. c. Map C, area 4.3, RNP2 should be removed from the SPB as proposed by the RNP

5. Pond at Sunnyside Cottages a. Agree this proposed change

6. Lyeway Lane a. No objection

7. Garden at the Post House, Church Street a. Object on the same basis as above (Winton Cottage)

8. Land at the school, School Lane a. No objection

9. Land rear of Little Chester and Delfan, Hammonds Lane a. Proposed change supported

10. Garden of Winton Cottage a. Proposed change not supported for the reasons above

11. Land at the pavilion a. Proposed change supported, change aligns with the changes proposed in the Ropley

NP

12. Vicarage Lane Road a. Proposed change supported, change aligns with the changes proposed in the Ropley NP

13. Vicarage Lane Road a. Proposed change supported

14. Land at Monks Mead, Vicarage Road a. Proposed change supported

15. Land at West View and Oak Leigh, park Lane a. Proposed change not supported. This sets a precedent of re-drawing SPBs around individual houses which is unnecessary

16. Land at May Cottage, Petersfield Road a. Proposed change supported

Business Allocation at Home Farm

Overall this allocation is supported with the following conditions; • The top of the field is an area of Significant Visual Prominence in the (assumed) made Ropley NP – so design would need to sympathetic 17. Development of this site would be completely dependent on the provision of decent Telecoms and Broadband provision Formulate a formal response from the PC. Heads together to a formal Ropley dene what type of housing should be appropriate. CL would like to see the Dene site treated as 2 separate sites, with the site at the top having the numbers of dwellings reduced and perhaps green-space where it is more visible and concentrate numbers at the bottom of the site.

- Councillors would like to see the phasing of development. - The development has not planned for any employment opportunities and this will see occupants travelling on the A31 to Winchester or Alton to London and therefore goes against sustainability criteria set out for development. - The Parish Council is supportive of the business development allocation at Home Farm, but the provision of infrastructure is lacking. Broadband/highspeed broadband is needed to attract business.

- SP will feed comments to JN and she will submit a response on behalf of the Parish Council. Comments need to be received by 19th March.

9 Neighbourhood Plan- Update (SP)

- The Neighbourhood Plan received initial feedback from the Examiner and it was complimentary on the detail and quality of the Plan. A set of questions was sent to our planning consultant, John Slater and these have been clarified and submitted to East Hampshire District Council, who have passed these to the Examiner for final recommendations. Does the Neighbourhood Plan team need to bring these recommendations to the Parish Council, or do we accept the below motion to delegate responsibility? The plan is to examine the Examiners comments and take a view on how serious the comments are. If they are major changes then the group will bring this back to the Parish Council however, this is perceived as unlikely given the initial comments from the Examiner. There is not much chance of getting to referendum by May, as the request for the referendum needs to be made by 11th of March to meet the May election deadline. The Neighbourhood Plan referendum will most likely occur 6 weeks after the May elections.

Motion: Delegate authority to the Steering Group and Cllr. Perkins to liaise with EHDC regarding the Examiners Recommendations for the RNP prior to referendum Proposed by JC and seconded by TD and all in favour.

10 Planning: I. Previous applications: decisions notified by EHDC and comments from PC Reference No: 30024/012 PARISH: Ropley Location: Chequers Inn, Winchester Road, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0BS Proposal: Display of hoarding, various signs and 2 x flagpoles with flags [Supplementary flag details and amended hoarding site plan received 5 Feb 2019] Decision: CONSENT Decision Date: 6 February, 2019

Reference No: 31999/010 PARISH: Ropley Location: Ropley House, Berry Hill, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0EB Proposal: Internal and external alterations to the main house and coach house which amend proposals previously granted under planning approval 31999/008 for replacement and new door and windows including alterations to fenestrations (amended description) Decision: PERMISSION Decision Date: 8 February, 2019

Reference No: 31999/011 PARISH: Ropley Location: Ropley House, Berry Hill, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0EB Proposal: Listed building consent - Various internal and external alterations to the main house and coach house which amend proposals previously granted under listed building consent 31999/009 for replacement and new door and windows including alterations to fenestrations (amended description) Decision: CONSENT Decision Date: 8 February, 2019

Reference No: 35321/004 PARISH: Ropley Location: Land Adjoining 3 Sunnyside Cottages, Church Street, Ropley, Alresford Proposal: Scrub block clearance leaving sorbus by gate. Crown lift four Sycamores to 4 metres. Fell Willow. Clear fallen trees. Decision: NO OBJECTION Decision Date: 12 February, 2019

Reference No: 21594/023 PARISH: Ropley Location: Searle & Taylor House, The Dene, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0BH Proposal: Change of use from mixed use (retail, office and garage) to B1 Business (office use) [amended description] Decision: PERMISSION Decision Date: 14 February, 2019

II. New applications: to be discussed:

Case No. Address Description 57683 Dene Stores, The Dene, Terrace of three houses with Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0BH associated parking, access and landscaping following demolition of the current building.

Limiting to 2 properties, access parking. Internal space DCLGs

Waste water management. Ecology

Objection. 25919/009 11 Parkstone Road, Ropley, Balustrating around existing Alresford, SO24 0EW flat roof area

No objection. 24440/005 Littledown House (formerly Removal of existing high Thickets), Swelling Hill, Ropley, maintenance roof with new Alresford, SO24 0DA simpler roof design formed with dormer windows over existing house (HSE)

No objection 57862/001 Elmbank, Church Lane, Ropley, Extension to existing garage Alresford, SO24 0EA (HSE)

No overall objection. Condition on tree removal. 55567/013 Land West of Oak Leigh, Park Variation of condition 18 of Lane, Ropley, Alresford 55567/006 to allow substitution of floor plans 18- RPL2-03 Rev A with 18-RPL2-03 Rev B and substitute elevation plan 18-RPL2-04 Rev A with 18- RPL2-04 Rev B (VOC)

No objection 57140/003 Little Barn, 7 Colebrook Field, Single storey side extension Ropley, Alresford, SO24 9FP Same conditions applied as the previous application. Timed light shutters for light spill.

No objection. 26671/003 Rose Bungalow, Kitwood Lane, Detached dwelling with Four Marks, Alton, SO24 0DB detached garage following

demolition of existing dwelling

No comment – Four Marks application.

11 Finance I. Payments paid electronically in line with item 9 (iii) of Ropley Parish Council minutes dated 5th April 2016.

21.02.19 B. French Salary Jan-Feb 501.11 Community 24.02.19 Heartbeat Defibrillator and install 1975.00 24.02.19 Xpert Heating Replacement boiler for Sports Club 3900.00 DJB Building 24.02.19 Winchester First instalment towards the village hall extension 23903.37 03.03.19 Mill Farm Trees hedge planting rec ground 54.78 03.03.19 Affordable IT Monthly IT subscription 15.58 05.03.19 S. R. Powell Wi-Fi antennas for Ropley Tennis Club 175.00 05.03.19 Affordable IT Monthly IT subscription 14.88

II. Payments to be authorised. No payments to be authorised.

III. Bank account signatories SP & GS have agreed to become additional signatories on the bank account. The clerk will bring the bank mandate to the next Parish Council meeting in order to add these signatories and remove JP following her stepping down as a Parish Councillor in May.

12 Report from District Councillor (CL) - East Hampshire District Council’s budget for 2019/20 was approved. As suggested Council Tax was frozen by the District Council and 1.5 million has been investigated to set up 2 funds. £1,000,000 has been allocated towards a Community Infrastructure Fund and £500,000 for a Welfare Fund for various projects. The village shop intends to explore the possibility of accessing some of the Community Infrastructure Fund for the development of the shop. - As part of the Examination of the Neighbourhood Plan comments were received from the receivers of the quarry site, which indicates that quarrying will commence shortly. The current license is due to expire in 2042 and has 30 conditions set for the ability to commence quarrying, with some time limited. All conditions need to be cleared before quarrying can commence. The receivers have 3 months left to appeal the residential planning decision. JP reminded the meeting, that the original planning permission for the quarry stipulated that after quarrying the site was to revert to a greenfield site and any planning permission for residential development would make a nonsense of planning permission and the conditions set. The site verges on the South Downs National Park and lighting would have a massive impact on the surrounding areas due to the height of the proposed development. - Looking at improving the broadband in the centre of the village. There’s funding of £2500 per business to implement an Open Reach scheme. Ropley is not part of Hampshire County Council broadband project as we are part of the Call Flow project. CL intends to send a circular around village to find out who would support better broadband in the centre of the village. With 1/3 of people signed up it is likely we would be able to access funding for the project.

13 Police Report

- In PC Nops absence Katy Morning, Police Community Support Officer provided an update. A monthly check on the system has been completed and there have been no incidents that have been reported to police.

14 Reports of Committees:

I. Highways- no report provided. II. Footpaths- no report provided. A resident was concerned that the footpath that from at the land owned by Gascoigne Lane Ltd is not registered on Hampshire Definitive Map. Communities have until 2026 to register all footpaths, otherwise they will be lost. TD to explore issue and report back. CL asked if the Lengthsman had managed to fix the steps on the footpath at Monksmead by Vicarage Lane. DF confirmed that he assessed the project and will bring the appropriate materials on the next visit to complete the project. DF also confirmed that the Lenghtsman cut the wrong side of the hedge at the footpath at Dene Farm House and that this will also be completed on next visit. III. Communications – no report provided. JP encourage residents to get on board with issues in the village. The Parish Council can only make comments on issues they’re aware of. Ropley is a spread-out settlement and the residents need to get involved. It is only if people get involved that decisions can be influenced. Please don’t assume the Parish Council knows everything in the Parish, please get in touch.

15 I. Ropley Society – no report provided. II. Friends of St. Peter's Church- DF confirmed that work has commenced on the temporary road for construction. III. HALC /EHALC – no report provided. GS has been asked to attend the next meeting on 27th March 2019, as this will provide details on CIL and developer funds. IV. Parish Hall Management Committee- TD confirmed that there were issues with the first payment instalment. The contractors sent the invoice to the wrong Clerk email and subsequently the Clerk didn’t receive it until the day the payment was due. TD thanked the Clerk for her efforts in resolving this issue. JW felt that it should be communicated to the construction company that it was not the correct way of dealing with the situation and TD agreed to communicate this. The boiler at the village hall may need replacing, as it is not currently functioning. TD to investigate and report back.

16 Correspondence up to 5th March 2019

- The Clerk received an email from the village litter pickers asking for temporary bins or a sign to be installed at the pull-in of the Chequers site, as there was considerable about of rubbish collected there. The Clerk contacted the developer to ask if a sign could be erected and he confirmed that the development is likely to get consent in 2 weeks and at this time the pull in would be blocked off. The Clerk asked if the team could collect any build-up of rubbish that occurs during this time and they agreed. - SP raised the financial issues of the Preschool and asked if the Parish Council would consider providing a grant to assist this difficult period. Clerk to put on agenda for the April Parish Council meeting and to seek clarification from East Hampshire District Council on how the Parish Council can assist.

- DF thanked both JP & JC on behalf of the Parish Council for their services and work for the Parish. Both are due to step down in May 2019 and DF wanted to convey our thanks for all their work. - TD enquired if the Parish Council would be seeking a speaker for the upcoming AGM. Clerk to put this topic on the agenda of the April Paris Council meeting for consideration.

Meeting closed at 20.50