MINUTES OF THE COTTESMORE
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING GROUP
VILLAGE HALL
MONDAY 7 JULY 2014 7.00PM
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT: Jack Wood (Chair), Ron Dan (Vice-Chair), Chris
Donovan (Treasurer), Peter Spence,
Dawn Spence, Frank Chivers,
Tony McClelland, Elaine Huq, Robert Tregay, Chris Whitton, Linda King, Terry
King, John Meara (on behalf of the
Parish Council), Lisa Viney
ALSO PRESENT: Sharon Baker (Member of the Planning Office
Team of RCC), David Hodson &
Ken Edward (Greetham
Neighbourhood Planning Group)
|
MINUTES
|
ACTION
|
|
1. Welcome and Apologies
Jack Wood welcomed
everyone to the meeting and introduced Sharon Baker from Rutland County
Council who is responsible for this area of work. Also David Hodson & Ken Edward who are
on the Greetham Neighbourhood Planning Group and are attending to see how we
are dealing with matters.
Apologies received from Daphne Lees, Tim Dixon,
Sue Vaughan, Simon Day and
Sophie Jamieson.
2. Questionnaire Summaries
RD explained that Fred Docker is doing an edited
version of the summary of all the comments made in the questionnaires and
this should be ready shortly. Over 300
were collected which represents a 66% response rate (exluding the barracks). 160
people made comments on their forms, half of which were in the environmental
section and the least in the energy and economy section. Only 8% of questionnaires delivered to the
Camp were completed.
Each section was then summarised:
Housing – RD
·
67% (of 196) against 4/5 bed houses, 83% (of 216) in favour of 3 bed
houses, 73% (of 226) in favour of 1 & 2 bed starter homes, 77% (of 193)
against blocks of apartments, 75% (of 224) in favour of retirement apartments
So, the majority in favour of 3 bed, low cost
houses with some retirement dwellings but they might not be aware that there
are already 78 of the 400 houses in the village are bungalows
·
89% (of 238) supported proposition that any future building should be
in keeping with the older elements of the village
·
45% (of 194) supported brick and concrete tiles
·
76% (of 227) materials should be chosen to conserve energy
·
Almost total unanimity for no building to be above 2 storeys and that
the village retained its appearance and character
Environment and Facilities – CW
·
239 of 300 responses felt that the character of the village should be
retained whilst improving the kerbs, pavements and footpaths with wider paths
on Main Street and pavement parking outside the chip shop
·
Nearly 50% felt that there were too many signs
·
Dog Waste signs should be reduced in size
·
Some signs restrict drivers’ view
·
Signs required for horses, and children
·
Over 75% thought a Doctor’s surgery was required
·
151 responses thought there should be allotments but only 61 would use
one
·
Majority felt that any new housing should have a recreation area –
particularly Harrier Close
·
Over 75% requested increase in access to the countryside
·
196 felt there should be more done for older people
·
Many suggested more integration with the barracks and use of
facilities
·
General consensus that happy with facilities but many felt
improvements should be made to the village shop and that other outlets should
be introduced such as a coffee shop and hairdresser
Transport - CD
·
260 responded to questions in this section out of the 300
questionnaires returned. Often, however, responses were in direct conflict
which each other and perceived problems vary considerably
·
75% did not favour lowering the speed limits or widening roads.
·
Curbs and signage should be made clearer
·
Speed control signs should be further from the edge of the village
·
Humps not favoured
·
Nearly 80% favoured changing the signing priority of the A1 North
from Oakham. Aware this would divert
traffic to the A606 instead but the Cottesmore road is a B road
·
Nearly 80% seek a limit of HGVs through the village but support the
industry and quarries which are sited in this area
·
Parking should be better organised for chip shop and pub. Village Hall parking should not be used for
general parking. Parking needs to be
restricted on Mill Lane where is meets Main Street and more action taken
against irresponsible parking.
·
Limited support for improvements to junction of Mill Lane and Main
Street as well as Ashwell Road and Market Overton Road. Less support for a roundabout at Exton
Road.
·
Some support for improved cycle tracks
·
Calls for safer route from Barrow to Cottesmore for school children
and a pedestrian crossing in the centre of the Village and from Harrier Close
across Rogues Lane
·
Over 80% felt the need for regular buses to Stamford and almost as
many supported better frequency of buses to Oakham and Melton Mowbray
Economy and Energy - RD
·
80% in favour of a Village Trade Directory
·
84% in favour of another Bed & Breakfast
·
50/50 for and against change of use from residential to retail
·
Mainly against industrial units.
If one, suggested Rogues Lane, Market Overton Road, near the school or
near the tip
·
Out of 300 replies, 58 people were identified as self-employed. Taken as a proportion of the total
households in the Village, this would amount to 87 self-employed people in
the Village.
Energy - RD
·
80% supported the need for more information on this subject
·
67% supported helping households change suppliers
·
61% in favour of community buying
schemes
·
Of the 250 replies in this section, 56% against the introduction of
solar panels and 43% quite happy with the idea but majority thought they
should not be seen from Main Street
·
Of the 258 replies in this section, 60% against the use of wind
turbines and 40% in favour. General
consensus it that they should be out of sight – Barracks, Market Overton Road
/ Ashwell Road where windmill used to be.
There then followed some discussion on the feedback received.
·
RT pointed out
that, when considering and making recommendations for development sites, we
need to be aware that there are European regulations, Government guidance and
legal test cases, as well as good practice methodologies that define how we
should go about the process. We also
need proposals that bear some relationship to objectively defined housing
needs etc in the Local Authority- Rutland- area, although these are not yet
known for the next Plan Period, so we need to focus on (i) flexible, broad
proposals that fit with our Vision for the village and (ii) potentially,
specific sites where we are sure we want development to proceed irrespective
of Local Plan developments. Any proposals need to have a proper evidence base
and need to take account of planning principles, sustainable development
objectives and constraints that might apply. In short, it is a technical and
expert process. That doesn’t mean we
can’t say what we want, but we can’t just ’make it up’. Development sites need to be justified. It
is also important to separate what is in our hands and what isn’t. He
also cautioned against coming up with detailed proposals at this stage in the
Neighbourhood Plan process- there is a long way to go and we don’t have the
evidence base yet.
We
should therefore concentrate on the VISION – what we want for our village. He
suggested that, based on the first round of consultation responses, we should
not put forward detailed proposals but, rather, put forward broad themes and
priorities reflecting where it appears people want to go. This can be
tested at the next village consultation.
It
is a priority that we obtain the GIS base from RCC (listed buildings, flood
areas etc) which will tell us what we do have to take into account.
Neighbourhood Plans are not expected to have such a high standard as those
from developers and councils but we are still expected to be aware what the
constraints and opportunities are. We will then have the technical
information to underpin what we want. Sharon Baker said this was
available.
Also,
it would be helpful to have precedent boards showing examples of good
practice in other villages eg Castor & Ailsworth’s road calming
scheme. If we could use these boards at the next village consultation
day, it would help to explain to villagers what is required and assist with
the vision.
·
JM stated that
the Parish Council was in discussions with RCC over traffic. Best practice examples would be helpful
before that meeting. TK said there was
some evidence for speed humps and some information on traffic volumes for
Greetham and Cottesmore.
·
Sharon Baker
agreed to send some links to the Council’s evidence base, site location
documents and economic data.
3. Communication
RD
will be putting the summary of the questionnaire on the Blog but it was
agreed that the committee should have a chance to comment on it before it is
uploaded. It was also agreed that it
would be a good idea to print out 100 – 200 copies of it for people to read
if they wished. Use The Link to ask if
people would like one and put in the shop, pub and social club. TK said that his office would be happy to
copy them for the price of the paper only.
It
was agreed that it is very important to keep getting the message out to the
Village about this plan. We should put
something in The Link every month, using the logo each time. TK explained that, when it is time to vote,
a proper electoral system is adopted.
CD suggested, therefore, that that we should canvass properly on the
run up to the voting date, which was agreed.
4. Next Step
This matter
was postponed until the next meeting.
5. Rutland County Council
Sharon Baker stated that the Neighbourhood Plan
has to be in accordance with the
Council’s core strategy in relation to planning. Sites have been allocated up to 2026 but
this is still awaiting the Inspector’s report. She is confident these sites will meet the
requirements but there is still a possibility that further housing could come
to Cottesmore in that time. TK
explained that the strategy is reviewed every 5 years so there is always risk
but other sites usually come forward.
Oakham will also be favoured over villages as it has all the services
and everything is in one place.
RT thought that it would be most helpful to have
what has just been said written down simply for the next Village consultation
day.
CD stated that developers are only just waking up
to the fact that Neighbourhood Plans can undermine their plans.
JM wondered what the reaction of RCC would be if,
in spite of no allocation for housing in Cottesmore, an application for more
was submitted. Sharon Baker said that,
if the Neighbourhood Plan supported it, so would RCC. If a speculative one came in, RCC would not
support it as they have the allocation in place.
6. Financial Update
CD
stated that there was not much to add since the last meeting. The £1700 required for the last
consultation has been paid and we are solvent. We must bear in mind that the rules
stipulate that all the money given to us is spent by the end of 2014.
JW
requested a hard copy of all the financial records which he can keep.
7. Matters Arising
·
Sharon Baker agreed to resend the Service Agreement. The Parish Council will sign it.
·
The Terms of Reference have been done and are on file.
8. Any Other Business
JM
mentioned the question of extending the footpath from Cottesmore to
Exton. It appears that there might be
some money available to get this done.
It is likely to be in a rural finish rather than tarmac, however, so
not the best surface for cycling. The
Committee should therefore be aware that some of the suggestions made could
already have been implemented.
9. Date of Next Meeting
Monday
11 August at 7pm
|
If necessary,
RT will speak to RCC about
what we require
TK to make sure we obtain
this
RD to distribute summary
and upload to Blog
TK will work with Sharon
Baker to produce this
CD to provide JW with hard
copies of financial records
|
No comments:
Post a Comment