Parish Council minutes & agendas 2020

 NETTLEHAM PARISH COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL

HELD REMOTELY ON TUESDAY 4 AUGUST 2020, AT 7.30PM.

PRESENT:  Councillors: J Evans (Chairman), Mrs J Clayton, Mrs A White, P McNeill, D Newsam, J Barrett, J Radcliffe, A Henderson Cllr C Higham

Also in attendance remotely: Mrs D Locker (Clerk), Mrs M Vail Facilities Manager    

Councillors not present: Cllr P Jenkinson (Vice-Chairman); Cllr G McNeill (WLDC) – apologies given

Commencing at 7.32pm

The Chairman welcomed those in attendance, remotely, to the Extra Ordinary meeting which had been called to consider some urgent business as the next timetabled meeting is for 15th September 2020.

Public Forum

Councillor Mrs White (WLDC) advised:

• There seems to have been some progress in discussions between the developer (Larkfleet) and WLDC Planning Officers regarding the reinstatement of the historic ridge and furrow arrangements to the field off Deepdale Lane, in line with the original Planning conditions;
• Discussion are ongoing about devolution locally, following an application made by the County Council, which if agreed would create 2 unitary authorities and the removal of the District Councils;
• West Lindsey DC have yet to confirm the date when their Planning Committee will consider the application for development of phase 2, off Deepdale Lane, following ‘call-in’ by District Councillors;

Councillor Newsam advised that the Parish Council had written to the Nettleham Coop to request the provision of an extra bin for the Village Green to cater for the increase in litter and packaging being deposited in and around an existing bin.

Police Report – The Police have recently advised that they are no longer sending incident reports.

The Meeting opened at 7.38pm

091/20.  TO RESOLVE TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES AND ACCEPT REASONS FOR ABSENCE

The Clerk advised that apologies had been received from Cllr Jenkinson.  It was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED: To accept apologies and the reasons given for their absence.  Unanimous

092/20. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCALISM ACT 2011 AND TO CONSIDER ANY REQUESTS FOR DISPENSATIONS

None received.

093/20. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE NOTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 14 JULY 2020 AND TO AUTHORISE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE OFFICIAL MINUTES

It was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED:  That the notes of the meeting of the Parish Council, held on 14 July 2020, be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.  Unanimous - (by those that had been in attendance at the meeting.

094/20.  PLANNING MATTERS

a) To receive observations and to discuss the following planning application:-

1)  Land off The Hawthorns                        Miss Emma Truelove                                                  141225

Application for approval of reserved matters to erect 63no. dwelllings with garages, access roads, footpaths & open space considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - following outline planning permission 138494 granted 05 July 2020.

Comments from Council’s Planning Liaison Panel:  Nettleham Parish Council considers that the proposed scheme is at variance with the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan on the following policies and Strongly Objects to this detailed plan for the following reasons.

1. Policy H2 States that Applications for 11 or more dwellings will be required to produce a mix of dwellings to meet the identified needs of current and future households in Nettleham. The housing schedule would appear to be at variance with the housing scheme.

There are 4 types of 5 bedroom houses Cadwell, Tealby, Apley, Cabourne, - the total for these is actually 7.

The Laceby is listed as 3 bedroomed but has an upstairs `Reading Room` which looks like a bedroom and has the dimensions of a bedroom.  There are 12 of these on the Schedule. So in comparison with the totals claimed in the summary to the Schedule, the Schedule itself and the reality we calculate the following:

Only the information on the Schedule and the number of bedrooms* shown on the house plans here (*and reading rooms) has been used. This demonstrates a disproportionate bias to 4 bedroom homes.

2. The proposal does not confirm to the design policy D6 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan in that it fails to recognize the local character in the scheme. 

a) Plots 10, 11, 12 are all accessed by gated private drives, this is not seen elsewhere in other estate developments in Nettleham.

b) There appears to be 4 private drives on this development on what would normally be adoptable roads.

c) A private drive (Drive 2) runs beside the area of public open space and therefore could potentially impact the use of that space, this drive should therefore be a public road.

d) The scheme shows metal fencing between properties and the road, this has a more urban feel and does not reflect the rural nature of the village. This is also in contrast with the only approach road into the development from the open plan design concept of Larch Avenue/The Hawthorns.

e) The village of Nettleham is typified by roadside trees, which softens the built form and gives the area a more rural feel.  In addition the trees add an environmental benefit.  Although the scheme shows trees and shrubs planted around the boundary of the development and the area of public open space there are very few trees planted on the roadside verges.To be consistent with many other estate developments in the village we would expect approximately 1 tree for every 3 houses.

3. The Scheme does not reflect the footpaths shown in the approved PA 140737 which shows a hard surfaced footpath connecting the public open space on the development to Ridgeway.  In addition it does not indicate the route through the development to the field path to the north of the development.

4. The cluster of affordable homes to the southern end of road 3 is not well designed, as it leaves no turning room for vehicles.

5. As a matter of good practice new homes backing onto existing bungalows along Ridgeway and Brookefield Avenue should also be bungalows to minimize the impact on the amenity value of the existing homes.  A good example of this approach can be seen on the Stirlin Homes Development off Lodge Lane in Nettleham.

6. The scheme is not clear when it comes to plots 24-27,

a)  where is the allocated parking?

b)  the frontage is not clear, do the front doors of these homes open directly on the what could be an access road should the field to the north of this development be developed at  a future  date.

c)  what does the 10,000 refer to in that area, is it mm, ie 10 m? Perhaps this area is only intended for parking if so then why is there not a hedge at the end of it to delineate the edge of the development.

7. Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan Policy D3 clearly lays out the minimum parking requirements per property, this proposal has not demonstrated it has met this requirement.  D-3 requires 1-2 bed homes should have a minimum of 2 car parking spaces each whereas the scheme seems to show only shows 1.  All 3 and 4 bed homes should have parking space for 3 vehicles; that would not seem to be possible for the T type properties 35, 36.  It would be helpful if the applicant could demonstrate on their schedule how many parking spaces are provided per property for the whole development to show compliance to D-3

Nettleham Parish Council have made several attempts to discuss these concerns with the developer but have not had a response to our requests for a meeting.

It was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED:  That the Council’s comments be submitted to WLDC in respect of planning application number 141225.  Unanimous

095/20.  TO DISCUSS THE OPENING OF COUNCIL’S BUILDINGS AND MEASURES TO BE PUT IN PLACE – COVID-19 RELATED

The Facilities Manager advised Council that following publication of Government guidance (most recent 31/7/20) relating to the opening up of workplaces and community buildings, the Council’s risk assessments had been reviewed and updated in line with the guidance for the Old School Mill Hill, Mulsanne Park Pavilion and the Parish Office Scothern Road.  Additionally, modelling had been undertaken to consider maximum capacity for each building so as to meet social distancing requirements at 2mtrs; also at 1mt plus with risk mitigations.  There followed lengthy discussion about a range of related measures that may be required to enable the safe opening up the buildings for hire including: - introduction of card payment facilities at the Parish office (instead of taking cash), provision of sanitiser at entrance/exit points, signage, closing of the kitchen facilities, for covid-19 related cleaning arrangements including between hirer sessions, how the cleaning could be delivered and that additional externally delivered cleaning costs may need to be covered by hirers. 

It was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED:  That the Council agree to the re-opening of the Council’s buildings for hire and Parish Office with effect from 1st September 2020 (subject to the necessary requirements being in place for the safe opening and Government guidance).  The Clerk to liaise with the regular facilities hirers to confirm the agreed re-opening date and to seek feedback about the cleaning arrangements and potential for a cleaning charge to be introduced.  The Council will also continue to hold remote Council meetings via Zoom Unanimous

ACTIONS:  The Clerk and Facilities Manager to work to re-opening requirements and arrange any purchases required, to enable the safe opening of the Council’s buildings, from 1/9/20.

096/20.  COUNCILLOR REPORTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None

097/20.  DATE OF NEXT REMOTE MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL

A virtual meeting, via Zoom has been arranged for Tuesday 15 September 2020 commencing at 7.30pm.

098/20.  TO RESOLVE WHETHER TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION AND EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC AND PRESS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSIONS TO MEETINGS) ACT 1960, DUE TO THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS TO BE DISCUSSED

At 8.41pm it was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED:  To move into closed session. Unanimous

There were no members of the public present and the Facilities Manager left the meeting room.

099/20.   CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

(a)  To consider quotations received and approve additional expenditure required to undertake a ‘Character Assessment’ as part of the Neighbourhood Plan review

The Chairman advised that at the last meeting of the Parish Council held on 14 July 2020 it was agreed essential to have an up to date character assessment to form part of the Neighbourhood plan review.  The Council will investigate opportunities to secure additional funding to support this expenditure and 3 quotations for the assessment work had now been received, from consultants.  It was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED:  To agree the recommendations of the Neighbourhood Plan Review group to engage Austin Heritage to undertake the ‘Character Assessment’ and should the Council be unsuccessful in securing additional grant funding, Council agree to allocate up  to £5,000 from reserves to cover the Consultant costs, for the assessmen.   Unanimous

(b)  To consider a request to purchase a memorial plot for the interment of ashes, at Nettleham cemetery

Following discussion, it was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED:  To agree to the purchase of a cremated remains plot for the interment of a former resident who had, for some time prior to death, been required to move out of the village to receive essential care.  Unanimous

(c)   To consider a request to purchase a burial plot for interment of a non-resident of the parish

Following consideration of the circumstances and discussion, it was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED:  To refuse the request to purchase a burial plot for the interment of a non-resident.For:  8;    Abstention: 1