Draft AMPNEY CRUCIS PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL HELD ON 13 NOVEMBER 2006, IN THE VILLAGE HALL, AMPNEY CRUCIS.
Present: Councillors Gerald Gaden, Adrian Grazebrook, Peter Kelly, Tim Tremellen and Barry Dent.
District Councillor Edward Horsfall
Bob Austin, Chief Executive, Cotswold District Council.
Presiding: Councillor Barry Dent
Clerk: Mrs H Tonks
The meeting commenced at 7.15pm. There was 1 member of the public present.
1. Apologies for absence
Councillor David Vessey
2. Bob Austin, Chief Executive, Cotswold District Council
The Chairman welcomed Bob Austin, Chief Executive of Cotswold District Council to the meeting.
Mr. Austin tries to visit parts of the District regularly, to see local issues at parish level. On this occasion, he had asked local ward Councillors to set up meetings to give Parish Councils the opportunity to voice concerns.
The Clerk had sent details of questions to be asked, and Mr. Austin provided details and answers on each question.
· Planning: The Council raised concerns that they feel that their input to the planning process to be rushed and rather unsatisfactory, with little feedback on decisions reached by the District Council.
Mr Austin explained that the planning process begins with the production of the Local Plan. Throughout the production of the Local Plan, the District Council is obliged to make changes suggested by Government and Planning inspectors. Supportive comments and objections are also made by local residents and these must be considered. At the end of the Local Plan process earlier this year, the District Council were obliged, by Government, to make two amendments to the plan. These related to the numbers of houses required in the district and to Policy 19 which restricts the building of houses outside the principal settlements.
There is a presumption to permit when officers and Councillors are looking at planning applications. Refusals can only be made when clear policy grounds allow, and the application is contrary to at least one policy. The District Council have an appeals budget and the decision to permit or refuse planning applications would not be made on cost grounds.
Parish Councils are invited to comment, but objections must be made on policy grounds. On normal planning applications the District Council must make a decision within 8 weeks, 21 days of which would be open for public consultation. On major applications decisions must be made within 13 weeks.
· CLUEDs: A CLUED (Certificate of Lawful Use or Established Development) is not subject to a time restriction, and some CLUEDs can take years to resolve.
· Retrospective planning applications: there is an impression that applying for a retrospective planning application is an easier route to receiving planning permission.
Mr. Austin explained that of about 100 retrospective planning applications (out of approximately 3,500 applications each year), 50% of these would be for ‘tactical’ reasons. Officers and Councillors, in the case of retrospective planning applications, (e.g. for developments built larger than that stated in the original application) must make a decision on whether the application would have been permitted if submitted at the correct time.
Enforcement action is taken when appropriate, and the bitterest planning appeals are often surrounding the implementation of planning enforcement.
The District Council cross check between building control officers and planning officers to make sure that all applications for building control have planning permission. Successive applications concerning a single development are looked at on an independent basis.
Whilst the District Council can be held liable for the costs of appeals, the appellant can not.
· Councillor Grazebrook asked if the Conservation Officers are strict enough with applications. Mr. Austin receives complaints that Conservation Officers are actually too strict. They are however understaffed as there is a shortage of conservation architects willing to work in local government.
· Waste collection: what are the future proposals for waste collection in the District? Mr Austin explained that the aim of reducing non recyclable waste is two-fold: to minimise waste going to land fill sites, thus reducing the amount of methane released into the atmosphere; and to avert the severe penalties that Gloucestershire County Council will face if biodegradable waste is not removed from landfill by 2008.
The District Council are suggesting that kitchen waste, garden waste and, possibly, cardboard are collected weekly. On intervening weeks the remaining recycling would be collected alternately with residual waste. Only waste in bins will be collected. Arrangements for extra bins may be made for larger families.
There was some discussion whether a plastic bottle recycling site could be found in the village, and it was agreed that the Clerk would contact CDC to see whether it would be appropriate to place one in the car park of Durncourt Cottages.
· Care in the community: Concern was expressed that due to health and safety measures, carers were unable to carry out cleaning and other duties for the elderly. Mr Austin explained that although some funding has been made available from the District Council through the 2nd homes Council Tax, the District Council holds no formal statutory duty for care in the community. The responsibility lies with the County Council and Primary Care Trust.
· The Parish’s County Councillor is also the Chairman of the County Council. Naturally this leads to a heavy work commitment, with the Parish Council not receiving a County influence in their meetings. It was thought that this was similar all over the County, as ward boundaries have grown.
· Citizens Advice Bureau: why had the grant aid to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) been cut? Mr Austin explained that the grant budget for CDC was £125,000. There was a business case for CDC to make a grant to the CAB, as the work done by the CAB reduces the workload of the District Council. Similarly, there would be a case that the Department for Work and Pensions should also make grants, as their workload would also be reduced. The CDC are encouraging the CAB to apply for grant aid for specific projects and to apply for grants elsewhere.
· Pensions: there were queries about the pension fund, whether it was in deficit, if so how did this occur, and how would it be recovered? It was explained by Mr Austin that the operation of the pension scheme is enshrined in law. It is administered by the County Council for over 100 organisations in the County. Every 3 years, the fund is valued by actuaries, identifying whether the pension scheme is fully funded. Two years ago, the fund was 74% funded. Any deficit must be met by the employers within 13 years, although the District Council agreed two years ago that the deficit would be addressed within 7 years. Deficits are generally caused by the rising longevity of employees (although there is a difference in morbidity rates, dependent on the area of work and residence, varying from 63 to over 83).
There is no guarantee that the fund would not fall into deficit again. It is thought that the scheme will remain as a linked salary scheme, as public sector salaries at a professional level, compared with the private sector, are often lower. It is possible that the scheme could become linked to average salaries, rather than final salaries, thus benefiting the lower paid.
Councillor Dent thanked Mr Austin for his helpful and frank explanations.
3. Minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2006
Resolution 44/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2006 be signed and adopted.
4. Matters arising from the meeting held on 18 September 2006.
4.1 Village Directory
This has now been printed and has been delivered. The Clerk has paid the invoice.
Resolution 45/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council retrospectively resolved that the invoice for the printing of the village directory totalling £480.00, be paid.
Elisabeth Gerver has some outstanding expenses which will be submitted at the next meeting. There will be a balance left over, and it is suggested that this be placed in a reserve in 2007/08 for a future edition of the directory.
4.2 A417 London Road
GCC have explained to the Clerk that they are aware of the poor road surface conditions on the A417, but there is no scheme in 2006/07 funding. It will be considered in the following year, but will be subject to funding and prioritisation against other roads that are failing.
4.3 Cirencester/Latton bypass
There has been little response from most local residents in getting involved in this campaign. It was agreed that the Clerk would write an article for the newsletter to try and increase interest in the campaign.
4.4 Use of the probation service for litter picking.
The Clerk has spoken to David Read, Clerk to Bromsberrow PC, asking how they arranged for people doing their community service to carry out litter picking.
The following points came up in the conversation:
· Up to 10 supervisors will be required.
· A minimum of 10 people need to attend a highway supervisor’s course, with a cost of about £400.
· The PC, with limited help from the District and County councils, bought reflective jackets, litter picking equipment, traffic cones, and signs.
· The PC applied for and received a waste carrier’s licence from the Environment Agency.
· The probation services were very keen to do a very highly visible project. They were not keen to collect litter from quiet streets.
· Conditions from the Highways Agency, District Council, County Council and the Environment Agency all needed to be met.
It was agreed that no further action would be taken. The Clerk would contact the parishioner who raised the query.
5. Reports from County/District Councillors
Councillor Horsfall raised the following queries:
· He is willing to provide feedback for the Parish Council on occasions when they have questions when a planning application has been refused or permitted
· CLUED, Park Farm: Councillor Horsfall will set up a meeting between himself, Mike Napper and representatives from the Parish Council when the decision about the CLUED application is known.
· The District Council are applying for £200,000 of Lottery funding for play provision within the District.
· GRCC are overseeing a scheme generated by the Department for Works and Pensions providing Village Agents for local areas. Details were placed in the circulation folder.
· £80 is available in the Ward Projects Fund. It was thought that this could be placed towards the notice board (see paragraph 10.3). The Clerk will ask for an application form.
· Budget consultations are ongoing, and the projected rise in the CDC element of Council tax is thought to be 2.5 – 3.5%. It is not thought that there will be a substantial increase in car parking charges.
· A fast funding seminar will be held in Northleach for any organisation that needs funds. Councillor Dent will contact the school.
· The Leisure Centre has been hit by rising energy costs. Work will be carried out to update energy conservation in the Centre.
Councillor Kelly left the meeting.
6. Questions from the Public
None.
7. Financial matters
7.1 Current financial position
£400 requires transferring into the imprest account.
Resolution 46/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council resolved that £400.00 be transferred to the imprest account.
7.2 Agreement of payments
None.
7.3 Clerk’s salary and contract of employment
The Clerk received papers a few months ago from NALC that suggested a different way of working out how much to pay Town and Parish Clerks, from the smallest parishes to bigger organisations such as Cirencester. As the precept is about to be discussed again, it was thought that the position should be formalised now that such a system is available.
Resolution 47/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council resolved that a Working Party of Councillors Vessey, Kelly and Dent is set up under Councillor Vessey’s chairmanship. The terms of reference will be to consider the documents issued by NALC and to make recommendations to the Council regarding the Clerk’s salary and contract of employment.
7.4 Precept request for 2007/08
The following figures are based on last year’s precept request, with amendments as shown.
Staff costs: salary £3273 Increase 2%
expenses £ 100 No change
Grass cutting: £1260 Increase 5%
Burial Ground maintenance £ 0 No change
Ampney Times £ 100 Decrease of £8.00
Admin: GAPTC £ 105 Increase 5%
village Hall Hire £ 80 No change
insurance £ 693 Increase 10%
misc. and postage £ 159 Increase of £35
Playground: sinking fund £1000 No change
replacement £ 300 No change
insurance £ 330 Increase 10%
audit £ 0 No longer needed
Other:
donations/grants £ 100 No change
P‘dells notice board £ 145 See para 10.3
These figures will be discussed further in January 2007.
8. Planning matters
8.1 Decisions
374 CT 2905/Y Unit 1 Park Close Permits
375 CT 2905Z Unit 1 Park Close Refused
385 CT 2865/1/G April Cottage Permits
386 CT 3964/E Cotswold Cottage Permits
387 CT 6685/D Penny Patch Permits
388 06/02224/TRECON Cobblers Cottage No objections
390 CT 4942/R Dudley Barn Consents
8.2 Outstanding applications
354 05/0071/CWFUL/CAPS Sunhill Objection
383 CT 2905/1/A Park Close Objection
389 CT 3084/B Mead House No objections
391 CT 7246/F Chantry No objections
8.3 Amendments
None
8.4 Tree works
None
9. Burial ground matters
The Clerk will walk the burial ground with Councillor Gaden identifying plots for the burial of ashes.
10. Village Update
10.1 Playground
The Clerk will contact Kim Hartshorne to see if she knows whether the management of the playground will be taken over by the Friends of the School.
10.2 Grass cutting contract
The budget allows for 1 further cut of the burial ground. The Council agreed to authorise one extra cut in March if needed. The funds will be taken from the Burial Ground Maintenance reserve.
Resolution 48/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council resolved that Cottage Garden Services be instructed to carry out one extra cut before 31 March 2006, with the invoice being paid from the Burial Ground Maintenance reserve.
Notices have been placed in the notice boards advertising the grass cutting tender.
10.3 Pleydells notice board
Councillor Vessey had made enquiries of GRCC in applying for a grant to replace the notice board at The Pleydells.
Resolution 49/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council retrospectively resolved that an application be made to GRCC for a grant to fund a new notice board at The Pleydells.
Should funding from GRCC be received, it was agreed that the Council would place an order with Harold Stevens for the production and installation of a double board for The Pleydells.
Resolution 50/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council resolved that after receiving a positive response from the GRCC application, Harold Stevens be instructed to produce and install a new double notice board for The Pleydells. The cost to the Council should not exceed £145.00.
It was also agreed that the Clerk would make an application for funding to the CDC Ward Projects Fund.
Resolution 51/06 The Chairman proposed and the Council resolved that an application be made to Cotswold District Council’s Ward Project Fund for a grant to fund a new notice board at The Pleydells.
10.4 Gasson’s Lane
Councillor Gaden explained that there are potholes in Gasson’s Lane. The Clerk agreed to ask GCC if they could fill them.
10.5 Stonelea
The Clerk agreed to contact the enforcement officers at CDC to ask whether the caravan at Stonelea was allowed to be permanently lived in. It was thought that although the bungalow at Stonelea was half demolished, there was little that could be done. The Clerk will check with the enforcement officers.
10.6 Abandoned caravan.
A caravan has been parked near Back Lane for a long time, and is in a deteriorating condition. The Clerk will check whether the caravan is on Highway or private land, and whether anything can be done to have it moved.
11. Correspondence received
11.1 Rural partnership conference.
Noted.
12. Matters outstanding
None.
13. Date, time and place of next meeting.
8 January 2007, 7.15pm in the Village Hall.