Minutes of an Extra Ordinary Parish Council Meeting held on Wednesday 2nd November 2016 At Brampton Abbotts Village Hall 7.30pm
R. Lewis (Chairman), C. Gething-Lewis, O. Marshall, T. Orton, I. Peabody, P. Plumley, J. Sherahilo, D. Teague (part meeting).
Lynda Wilcox (HALC) … Acting Clerk. Ward Councillor B Durkin.
1. Apologies for absence: There were none.
2. Declarations of interest and written dispensation requests
2.1 Councillor O. Marshall declared a DPI (Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in agenda item 3.2 and signed the book accordingly.
3.1 Application 161859 Land West of Larksmead Brampton Abbotts Ross on Wye. Proposed residential dwelling (amended). Applicant Mr S Fraser: It was RESOLVED to make the following comments which were the same comments as previously made but without reference to the size of the development:
“The Parish Council objects to the application as the application is contrary to policies RA2, RA3 of the Local Plan & NPPF Para 115 for the following reasons;
Policy RA2 states: The importance of the Wye Valley Area of Natural Outstanding Beauty and therefore the application is contrary to the policy for the following reasons:
The position of the development would have a detrimental and unacceptable impact on the landscape and character of the area with regard to the special qualities of the Wye Valley AONB of which this proposed development is within. There is no settlement boundary in Brampton Abbotts at present and therefore the proposed development is in open countryside which is again contrary to policy RA2 and also RA3.
We would also draw your attention to NPPF Para 115 which states “Great Weight should be given to conserving landscape, scenic beauty in AONB areas which have the highest status of protection to landscape and scenic beauty.”
It is also noted by the Parish Council that the landscape and visual impact study undertaken by Peter Quinn Associates makes no representation with regard to the application being within an AONB.”
Councillor D. Teague joined the meeting.
Councillor O. Marshall left the meeting.
3.2 Application 163225 Land Adjacent to Brampton Abbotts Village Hall. Proposed residential development of 2 new dwellings. Applicant … HK Development: It was RESOLVED to make the following comments:
“This is an application for a development of 2 houses. A previous application which has been granted was made for 4 houses. It is clear from the Transport statement that the proposed development is for 6 Dwellings as it is so titled. If the original application had been for 6 houses the considerations would have been different.
These again are 4 bed properties with 3 parking spaces, the likely cost of each being in the region of £400k + they will be executive houses.
The Local plan, from the Core strategy, outlines how to develop areas in response to key issues such as:-
A Key Issue deliver more, better quality homes (especially affordable homes) this development does not fulfil this key issue. It produces a further two executive houses, the whole site houses, 24 bedrooms in total and a poor utilisation of space. These homes cannot be classified in any way as affordable
B Key Issue Deliver improved infrastructure. This development fails to deliver any infrastructure it only adds to the already strained infrastructure.
The transport statement which was not available when the application for the 4 houses was decided, was prepared as the Highways officer expressed concerns over the increased number of vehicle trips, speed and volume of traffic. The report justifies and highlights those concerns. The report at 2.5 confirms “there are no pavements adjacent to the lane, pedestrians share the carriageway with cars, which, primarily, is no different to a shared access as defined in the Herefordshire Design Guide” the implication is that this causes no dangers, but quite the opposite. The area is much used by villagers and walkers, 3 footpaths merge at the gap between the 4 granted and 2 applied for sites, one the at BA23 which is a part of the Herefordshire Trail continues north along the lane shared by pedestrians and vehicles, so additional dangers will result from the increased traffic.
The Report states that the Lane from Ross road currently serves 35 dwellings 2 B&B & a Farm.
There is no exit so what goes up must come down.
The transport statement records a Vehicle count, along the lane that will provide access to the houses, logged 66 two-way vehicle movements on a Saturday and 99 on a Friday. The report at para 4.3 estimates 50 new two way trips per day, along this lane, that works out at, on the lower figure 75% extra traffic and on the higher figure 50% extra. On the lane leading up to Ross road 268 two way vehicle movements on a Saturday and 448 on a Friday. On the same calculation of 50 extra new two way trips an increase of 18% on the lower figure and 11% on the higher figure.
In additions there are the HGV count. This percentage increase are excessive and will clog the infrastructure and cause pedestrian dangers. It does not deliver any improved infrastructure.
At 2.12 states there are no segregated facilities for pedestrians or cyclists, they must share the carriageway with motorists. There are footpaths or public rights of way which take the pedestrian away from the road, however they will have to continue to cross the road as they will have done for quite some time. The report however omits to point out the existence of the footpath that continues north along the lane at BA 23 which is a part of the Herefordshire trail and is well used. The development will cause a deterioration in the infrastructure for pedestrians and walkers.
As is pointed out at 2.14 there is a single journey bus service once a week. All the journeys by the villagers will therefore be by the use of a private vehicle.
At 3.5 It wrongly states that Ross Road has sufficient space for 2 cars to pass. This is incorrect as there are passing spaces along this road. It also serves numerous farm vehicles with the additional heavy wide rural vehicles.
At Paragraph 4.5 it says that the NPPF states that “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe” I believe with no public transport and an extra estimated 50 new each way trips per day this will have a severe impact.
SEWERS The development intends to be connected to the mains sewers, this will add considerable strain to a system. The houses at the Grove north of the site are all connected to the mains drains intended to be used by this development, so again no improvement to the infrastructure only a further strain to it
ELECTRICITY the end of the electricity line is The Grove, no provision has been made to, or report prepared as to how the development will impact on users further up the line.
C Key Issue Protect, conserve & enhance valued natural, historic and built environments, including areas of outstanding natural beauty. The land is in an area of natural outstanding beauty. The Ecology Comment on the application site states that there are Smooth Newts in the pond and signs of grass snakes, how can this development be a positive response to this key issue when the habitat will be changed and disturbed. This key issue is not fulfilled
D Key Issue Address issues arising from an ageing population this development will not encourage or attract young people due to the cost of the properties. This key issue is not fulfilled.
E Key Issue Achieve sustainable development and reduce reliance on the private car there will be complete reliance on the private car in this development. This Key issue is not fulfilled
This development does not address the key issues set out in the local plan.
“The Core Strategy needs to balance environmental issues with economic and social needs and ensure that development is sustainable and does not cause irreversible harm to important resources and features”
This development does not add to the economic or social needs. It will irreversibly harm the already strained infrastructure and blight the ANOB.
The Sustainable Community Strategy the purpose is to set a clear vision and direction focusing on improving the social, economic and environmental well-being of the area
This development does not provide anything for the society, nothing for the environment or well -being of the area. This development does not achieve this vision.
To maintain and strengthen local sustainable communities…….
Enable development that has the ability to bolster existing service provision, improve facilities and infrastructure and meet the needs of the community.
This development does not provide this.
It goes on
Housing proposals will be permitted where.
1 Their design and layout should reflect the size, role and function of each settlement and located within or adjacent to the main built up area.
The design, materials, size and overpowering nature of the development does not reflect the rurality of the Brampton Abbotts settlement
2 Their locations make best and full use of sustainable brown field sites wherever possible
3 They result in development of high quality, sustainable schemes which are appropriate to their context and make a positive contribution to the surrounding environment and landscape.
The scheme does not make a positive contribution to the environment and landscape it only detracts and distracts from the area of natural outstanding beauty.
4 They result in the delivery of schemes that generate the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is requires in particular settlements reflecting local demand.
The Community Led Plan is the closest indication we have of the general wishes of the parishioners regarding housing and in the plan there was overwhelming support for family homes together with starter homes and affordable houses. This development does not fulfil the overwhelming views of the parishioners from the plan.
Councillor O Marshall rejoined the meeting
4. Transparency Fund
4.1 Application for transparency grant for website … it was RESOLVED to apply for a grant of £500 to access a new interactive website from Eyelid Productions.
4.2 Application for transparency grant for laptop and printer … it was RESOLVED to apply for a grant to cover the cost of a laptop and printer.
5.1 Grant for website training for the new clerk … it was noted that training for the clerk and three/four other councillors was included in the £500 fee for a new website from Eyelid Productions.
5.2 HALC training courses were noted and it was RESOLVED that an ‘In House’ session would be considered once the new clerk was appointed.
A resolution was passed to exclude the public due to confidential matters to be discussed
6. Employment Matters
To consider aspects of new Clerks employment … It was RESOLVED that the one current applicant for the post be interviewed with a view to further discussion at the next scheduled meeting.