Hardington Mandeville

The Minutes of the previous meeting November 2014)

MINUTES OF MEETING OF HARDINGTON MANDEVILLE PARISH COUNCIL HELD ON 2nd DECEMBER 2014 AT 7.30pm IN THE VILLAGE HALL
Members were reminded that the Council has a general duty to consider the following matters in the exercise of any of its functions - Equal Opportunities (race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status & any disability); Crime & Disorder, Health & Safety and Human Rights. Nancy Chapman, Parish Clerk

PRESENT

Robin Carpenter (Chairman), Peter Bysouth (Vice Chairman), Bill Turner, Malcolm White, Vanessa May, Andy Webb, Gina Seaton (District Councillor) and Marcus Fysh (County Councillor).

IN ATTENDANCE

Nancy Chapman (Parish Clerk) and 34 members of the public.

The Vice Chairman clarified that the Parish Council (PC) have no powers to refuse or reject a planning application. However, their collective opinion carries slightly more weight as they are there to represent the views of parishioners.

Before the meeting commenced there was an opportunity for the public to speak:

Keith Dack gave a presentation giving details of concerns and objections to the proposed Moor Lane development following a meeting of Moor Lane residents on 27th November. While they agreed that developing the site is desirable, their objections were detailed under 3 main areas; density, access and drainage. They also had concerns regarding the consultation process that had taken place and the proposed ecology impact.

Other Moor Lane residents then expressed their concerns:

• Further details on the potential problems of the proposed drainage plans were given.
• The proposed road is extremely close (3 metres) to Moor Lane House.
• The proposed white rendered boundary wall was not in-keeping.
• The proposed planting of large trees (wild Cherry/Apple) may block light, views and also the leaf-fall may block the drains.
• There is a potential danger to children on the road due to increased traffic.
• The application incorrectly states that the development is 3km from the centre of Yeovil, when it is in fact 5km.
• The potential increase in traffic on the road from White Post, through Holywell and along Primrose Hill may also increase accidents on a road, where they are already quite frequent.
• Site traffic during the development stage is likely to cause congestion for a pro-longed period.

A discussion took place to determine what number of homes the Moor lane residents would find acceptable. This ranged from 4 to 10 (maximum). There were also differing opinions on the number of affordable homes that is desirable.

It was reported that a new regulation had come into effect stating that developments of 10 or less would no longer require an affordable housing element.

Robin Carpenter explained that a number of documents had been originally omitted from the SSDC planning website and that they had been added on Monday morning.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE .
   Apologies were received from Paul Vallis and Cathy Bakewell (District Councillor).
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.
   Robin Carpenter declared an interest in item 3. The PC agreed he could remain in the room to hear the discussion regarding the application.
   
   Robin Carpenter left the meeting.
3. PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 14/05063/FUL
   Demolition of existing bungalow, erection of 15 dwellings, together with associated landscaping, access and infrastructure at Moor End Nursery, Moor Lane. Applicant: Halsall Homes.

   All councilors were in agreement that 15 houses was too many.

   Peter then summarized his views on the proposed application:
   • 6-10 houses would be more desirable.
   • The design is not in-keeping with the village (too much render, not enough stone). St. Mary’s View is a good example of what would be in-keeping.
   • The “sustainable” development does not include and renewable energy or low energy use.
   • The proposed affordable housing does not meet the requirements of the survey carried out. Perhaps another survey should be carried out?
   • Perhaps a non-extension covenant should be considered?
   • The highways proposal is very urban. Peter would prefer to see tarmaced roads. No rumble strip is necessary as this is not in-keeping. No priority road markings are necessary.
   • The application stated that construction traffic would use the adjoining farm, yet no agreement has been made for this.
   • There is potential for an increase in accidents due to increased traffic.
   • It is essential that the proposed drainage plan is changed to minimize flooding problems for existing neighbours. The alternative solution already suggested would be more suitable.
   • Concerns regarding proposed planting should be addressed and agreed in conjunction with the PC and district council.
   • The future of the 10 identified species of bats, slow worms and dormice that reside on the site was a concern.
   • There is no need for any street lighting.
     Post meeting note: It was clarified that there is no street lighting proposed on the plans.
   • It was felt the proposal should go to a planning committee rather that a Planning Officer and it was essential that the committee should hold a site visit to see the location for themselves.
   • SSDC should be asked why all the submitted documents were not published on the website.
   • Several mistakes had been identified in the proposed plans and reports.

   Peter suggested, that in light of all these concerns the developer may wish to withdraw this application and agree new plans.

   Vanessa May shared Peter’s concerns. Her personal view was that 6 properties is desirable for the site. She also felt the best thing would be for Hallsall homes to withdraw the application and this should be stressed in the PC’s response.

   Bill Turner’s view was that the site should not be developed and the existing house should remain. His main concern was that the location and access was just not right for a development such as this.

   Andy Webb’s stated he agreed with people’s concerns. He questioned the statement given in Hallsall Homes’ application that the public consultation was positive!

   It was agreed a letter should be drafted including all the points that had been raised and including a written version of the presentation by Moor lane residents. (it was stressed that residents should still write their own individual letters with their views). The PC would recommend that the current application is withdrawn and another one considered with 6-8 properties. Any affordable element should meet the village requirements.

   Robin Carpenter returned to the meeting.
4. ANY PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS AGENDA
   1. There were no planning applications received after publication of the agenda.
5. ANY OTHER MATTERS ARISING
   1. A resolution was passed to approve the following payment:
      Sign Solutions SW Ltd – Signs for the Community Field (£42.38 + £8.47 VAT) £50.85
   2. The PC received an email from SSDC stating they are proposing to acquire a grit spreading attachment to fit the back of a quad bike. They were asking for a list of locations in the parish that may require gritting and would be accessible with a quad bike. A number of locations were suggested, such as North Lane and Moor Lane, but it was felt that any residential road that is currently not on the grit spreading route, such as the High Street and Hill End should be listed even though these could be accessible by lorry. The clerk agreed to reply to the email to this effect.
6. DATE AND TIME OF NEST MEETING & CLOSURE
   The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 20th January 2014 at 7.30 p.m. in the Village Hall. The meeting closed at 8.30 pm.

Following the meeting further discussion took place with parishioners regarding their concerns over the development plans.