Special

Local Development Framework

Councillor Carlisle outlined the draft Local Development Framework Plan (LDFP) prepared by NHDC and available for consultation, as it relates to Barley, and handed out plans of those areas under discussion, together with details of the proposed housing development:

1.                  Richmond’s garage – currently designated employment

2.                  Land on Picknage Road – currently farmland outside the village envelope

Councillor Carlisle explained that there is currently political/economic pressure in the south-east to stem the rise in house prices and to provide smaller units of 1 -2 bedroom private or affordable housing – most council housing is now via housing associations and will be generated by them going forward.

This consultation process is an opportunity for Barley residents to have a say on future growth of the village.  Between the late 1980’s and 1999, 40 – 50 houses were built in the village.  There is a need to move forward in a balanced, steady way or there is a danger that the village will stagnate and lose its vibrancy and become just another commuter dormitory.

Barley is in terms of the current NHDC Local Plan a ‘Selected Village’ which means that will take some development.  The LDFP not only considers land allocation for residential uses but also takes account of future employment, for example, work units, workshops etc. and the need for other complementary uses.

The local authority is likely to have much of this policy already determined in principle but anyone with a particular or contrary view needs to express this as their private, individual view. However it is very important for the village as a community to also consider the proposals and the sort of development (if any) that it considers appropriate for the future and in particular the period covered by the draft LDFP. For example, in residential development terms if land currently outside the village envelope is brought within the envelope, then it will probably be developed as expensive private housing out of reach of many prospective occupiers/buyers, but if it stays outside the envelope, then it may be put forward for affordable housing (which means that the landowner will not get “full value” for it and would probably be a modest development undertaken by a housing association and therefore more likely to meet local  needs) .

The main plan in the handouts describes the village envelope.  Within this the presumption for planning purposes is generally in favour of development (with the exception of the Plaistow) subject to any such proposal also meeting the requirements of the other relevant policy criteria set out in the Local Plan. The Halcrow Housing Study referred to in the LDFP consultation, has looked at the heart of villages and for Barley, has identified Richmond’s garage for a possible change of use.  The Picknage Road site has been suggested by members of Royston & District Committee. The other two plans show these two sites.

Having considered the draft LDFP the Parish Council feels that the concerns for the village are the continuing supply of housing and employment issues so that the village can continue to grow organically, rather than by means of say the development of large new estates with significant increases in the number of dwellings and residents, and the strains that would consequently be imposed on the existing infrastructure (water supplies, sewerage, school, local road network etc which would follow, and probably result in the whole character of the village being lost Barley becoming not much more than a large dormitory village.

The meeting was opened to questions from the floor at this stage:

Is there a huge demand for small housing units in Barley?  Would such units encourage people who commute in and out of Cambridge?

Councillor Carlisle said that there was a need to consider what would happen when the children currently in the village grew up.  Without smaller housing units, there would be nowhere for them to live unless they moved out of the area.

Isn’t the Government always asking for a mixture of sizes and for wider stairways to accommodate stair lifts etc.?

Yes.   They would like to make it easier for elderly people to remain in their homes for as long as possible.

What is wrong with the village as it is now?  Why does it need to be developed?

Councillor Turner said that the village was currently growing at about 10% every 10 years and that this was in accordance with the majority view at the time of the meeting to discuss the last consultation plan in 1999.

Councillor Carlisle commented that twenty years ago, there was much more local labour.  There is now very little local employment and the village has therefore changed in this time.

Councillor Smith said that with no future development, it was likely that the school would be shut down, the shop would close and the village as it is today would die.

The general feeling was that Richmond’s garage should remain, for business reasons, but if it should close/move for any reason, then redesignation as a residential site would be acceptable.

Does affordable housing stay as affordable housing in perpetuity?

Councillor Carlisle commented on the position regarding the Greenbury Close development.  The Parish Council had originally been advised that the development by the Howard Cottage Housing Association was on the basis that Greenbury Close would always be designated for low cost affordable housing and to be allocated to local people with housing ‘needs’ but where in the absence of local demand would then be allocated more widely on a ‘cascade’ basis so that the units would not stand empty for any length of time. The Parish Council had been led to believe that these occupier criteria would be secured by a legally binding agreement.  However, this does not appear to have happened and the Parish Council has raised the matter with both Howard Cottages and with NHDC.

Who decided that Barley should be a Selected Village?  Did residents have a say in this?

Councillor Carlisle said that Barley Parish Council would have been consulted about this at the relevant time which was probably some time in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s.

Didn’t NHDC suggest that Barley should be a village that where the existing policies largely continued to apply? How can villagers influence these decisions?

Councillor Carlisle said that individuals should a) canvas the Parish Council, and b) more particularly, put points to NHDC, with justifications.  The more that individuals put forward similar but well argued views the more likely they are to be adopted. It should be noted however that the consultation documentation suggests that the land allocations put forward by NHDC in the draft LDFP will already be more than sufficient to meet the current targets required for the district. Any additional sites that may be put forward are therefore unlikely to be accepted other than in exceptional circumstances, and then only to perhaps make up for allocations that are discounted as part of the consultation process.

NHDC have asked for representations on the current proposals by 19 March 2008.  What would the Parish Council like residents to say?

Councillor Carlisle said that the Parish Council would like those present to give their views.  Any suggested amendments will be considered by the Parish Council and if subsequently considered appropriate put forward by the Parish Council to NHDC for consideration.  If anyone wants to put forward other sites, there would need to be very good reasons behind this for them to be considered. 

Are there any proposed developments in the village that have received planning consent but have not yet been built?

Councillor Carlisle said that he believed the only outstanding development (excluding Margaret House and other consents for alterations and/or extensions to individual properties) is for 5 -6 two to three bedroom units at September Cottage (off the High Street).

Councillor Turner asked the meeting for a show of hands on the following:

1.   In favour of the village doubling in size in the next 10 years – None

2.   In favour of no development at all over the next 10 years – None

3.   In favour of the continued organic, balanced growth of the past 10 to 20 years which would represent an approximate increase of some 10% over the proposed life of the draft LDFP to 2021 – A majority of those present.

The meeting then went on to discuss the potential development of the Picknage Road site, should the land become available.  It was agreed that any development should be of mixed private and affordable housing and should be concentrated towards the lower end of the site (possibly in a cul-de-sac stretching away from the road, rather than lining the edge of the road).   If affordable housing was to be built on the site, then there should be a guarantee that this designation would be retained in perpetuity.  A section 106 agreement for the infrastructure should be sought before any development, to cover drainage, traffic issues etc.

The meeting was in agreement to a change of use of the Richmond’s site, to residential, should this become available. 

Has the Parish Council commented on the recent proposals for Gypsy/Traveller sites?

No, because Barley is not directly affected.

Do the Parish Council have plans for any further sports facilities in the village?

The Parish Council are supportive of this and there are continuing discussions regarding the provision of changing facilities etc.

Apologies

Minutes of last Meeting

Matters Arising

·     War Memorial

The Clerk reported that she had received a quote from Jack White for the recent damage to the flagstones surrounding the War Memorial. It was agreed that the Clerk would contact the builder who repaired the Town House wall for a further quote, as two are required by the insurance company.

·     Planning consent and s.106 agreement for Greenbury Close

The Clerk has now written to Howard Cottage Housing Association regarding the Parish Council’s concerns over the criteria to be adopted for future occupier selection in respect of Greenbury Close.  A copy of the letter has been sent to District Councillor Howard Marshall

·     Letters regarding gates onto the Plaistow

The Clerk is to provide Councillor Carlisle with two letters for distribution and send a letter to Barley School.

·     The Club Room

As initial steps to market the property, a lettings sign for outside the Club Room has now been organised and the Clerk has arranged for an advertisement to be placed in The Diary

·     Lock-Up

Planning Applications

1 Sells Close Cottages  08/00224/1LB

Town House

·     Asbestos signs have now been obtained and will be put up shortly to indicate the location of materials which are suspected of having an asbestos content..  The further asbestos surveys are in hand.

·     The wall to the side of the Town House has now been repaired.

·     The new noticeboards for inside the Town House are now ready.

·     The Town House Health & Safety policy is to be reviewed.

·     The current electrical certificate should be placed on the noticeboard.  The Clerk said that she could not recall receiving this but would check her records.

6. / 7.

Recreation Ground/ Health & Safety

·     At the meeting with Drew & Barltrop on 20 February 2008, it was discovered that there was a new electric fence running round the Plaistow, including the children’s Play Area and the public footpath.  Councillor Turner has spoken to the local farmer who erected this and he has agreed to consider whether there is an alternative to the present arrangement.

    Councillor Carlisle pointed out that this fence was the property of the Parish Council.  The Clerk was therefore asked to write to request that the electric wire was removed on the basis that it was unacceptable for this to be erected around a public area, particularly where it was used by young children.

·     Drew & Barltrop have said that there may be plastic “caps” available to cover the tops of the logs in the children’s Play Area to prevent slipping.  They will let Councillor Elliott know if these can be obtained.

·     The gates on the playing field still need attention

·     The Clerk has obtained a quote from NHDC for providing, installing and emptying dog bins.  The cost to the Parish Council of a 45 litre bin would be £196 plus VAT, the installation cost would be £64.73 and there would be a weekly charge of £1.27 for emptying.  These costs are subject to an increase in April 2008.

It was agreed that three bins would be required on the Plaistow and that Councillor Martin would research the cost of the Parish Council providing these.  The Clerk would ask whether NHDC would then be prepared to empty these.

·     Children’s Play Area:

Dog signs still need to be put up.

An additional waste bin is still required.

A fence post has now been obtained and will be installed.

Land on Picknage Road

Correspondence

·     Letter from Brian Haughey regarding speeding in Barley: It was agreed that the Clerk would reply to say that the Parish Council are carefully considering the contents of his report and in the meantime, Councillor Turner has been asked to contact him to discuss this before the next Parish Council meeting.

·     Letter from Oliver Heald MP re Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign

·     Letter from Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign re presentation

·     E-mail:  Royston Town Council re notices

·     Letter from CDA for Herts re RoSPA Playground Training

·     Letter from Hertfordshire Police Authority re Launch of Hertfordshire’s Policing Plan 2008/11

·     E-mail:  NALC re Legal Topic Notes

·     E-mail:  Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign

·     Letter:  Hertfordshire County Council re Hertfordshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

·     Letter:  Essex County Council (Minerals & Waste Planning) re Local Validation Checklists

·     LCR Journal:  March 2008

·     Enjoy England – Celebrate St George’s Day booklet

·     Trustee Voices:  March 2008

·     Hertfordshire Highways Information Bulletin February 2008

·     NHDC Members’ Information w/e 01/02; 08/02; 15/02; 22/02; 29/02

·     NHDC Planning Control Committee Meeting 21/02/2008

Signing of Payments

It was resolved that the following payments should be made (proposed: Councillor Smith; seconded Councillor Slater)

P Isle                       Caretaking (Town House)                                                                                              

C Robinson             Cleaning (Town House)                                                       

V Martin                 Expenses (Town House)                                                                  

R Elliott                  Lamps (Town House)                                                                                             

I Turner                  Wood for noticeboards (Town House)              

J Drury                    Repairs to Town House wall                                                                      

AON Ltd                Town House Insurance premium                                                 

Evolution Signs      “To let” sign for Club Room                                                                          

Other Business

·     Councillor Elliott reported that lumps of granite had been placed on the boundary/highway of the Crown House at the junction of Bogmoor Road/Shaftenhoe End.  Councillor Elliott has concerns over the safety aspects of this and the Clerk was asked to obtain the views of Hertfordshire Highways.