Minutes of Meeting 18 th June 2018 Penton Village Hall 7.30pm Present: Councillors Clerk / RFO Members of the Public Stephen Millen Kevin Briant Heather Carrick David Atkinson Paul Williams Apologies: Rodney Bennett Nanette Colbourne PLANNING FORUM: 001/18 The Minutes of the last meeting for approval The Minutes were approved. 002/18 Declarations of Interest None Cllr Brooks 003/18 Planning applications received and circulated for review since last meeting: None 004/18 Planning applications to review: None 005/18 Nelsons/Homestead Farm The Clerk will enquire of the Enforcement Team of any update on our request for a site visit about the issues identified. Plot 5 Andover Business Park Appeal Goodman s 17/00043/OUTN. Appeal Reference: APP/C1760/W/17/3183289. Below is the Chairman s report given to PMPC for the decision: General The Council and Goodman s each argued for the appeal to be allowed but on different conditions. In particular they differed on whether the restrictions relating to the use by HCVs of the Barred Routes (BR) should apply. The parties had executed a new planning agreement before the appeal which carried forward the original BR restrictions but also contained a term that if the Inspector determined any obligation should not have effect, it would, only relation to Plot 5, cease to apply. In summary, the Inspector decided, only in relation to Plot 5, that the BR obligations should cease to apply to all the defined routes except two, the A3057 and the A343 between the junction with the A3093 and the A34. He decided instead that Traffic Regulations were appropriate for the Monxton Road and the B3402 and the Version 1 page 1
B3408.He also decided the Barred Routes Contributions (BRC) should not apply to those two routes, only again so far as Plot 5 was concerned. This second finding seems likely to have consequences for the rest of the Park. He also expressed doubts as to need for the ANPR. Barred Route HCV Traffic. It is also important to understand his findings about the individual BR and their suitability and capacity for HCV traffic which may have relevance for any future appeals. The generation of the number HCVs from Plot 5 was agreed as was the trip distribution but not the assignment of HCV movements to a particular BR. The inspector described Goodman s figures on this point as insufficiently robust and used their higher sensitivity figures in his analysis calling their lower base figure underestimated. A3057 and A343 between its junction with the A3093 and the A34 The BRs are to remain in force for these roads on the grounds that a significant increase in HCV traffic would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the safety and function of the routes both of which had constraints in a number of locations identified in the decision. The increases in HCV movements for both were significant. A342 While there were constraints, and a significant increase in HCV traffic would have an unacceptable impact, the increases were modest. The BR would be disapplied. A343 South of the A303 and the section within the Ring Road There was no evidence that HCV traffic would have an adverse effect. B3402, B3048 and Monxton Road These routes are to be dealt with by Traffic Regulation Orders controlling HCVs Barred Route Contributions It is probably worth setting out the Inspector s conclusions in some details in view of their potential impact. However, I have two further concerns about the BRC obligations. First, it is clear to me that the scope of the projects that can be funded by these contributions is wider than simply those matters that are required to address impacts arising from HCV use on the barred routes. While some of the ATAP s objectives relate to these routes, many (indeed most) do not. Furthermore, no specific evidence has been advanced by the Council to explain how the many projects set out in the ATAP (Andover Town Access Plan) would, in practice, achieve that objective. The relevant test in CIL Regulation 122(2)(b) is that the obligation is directly related to the development. This has not been shown in respect of the ATAP. My second concern is however more fundamental. As already noted the Council has conceded that the BRC obligations cannot constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development to the extent that they provide for the funding or provision of relevant infrastructure. The outstanding matter is therefore Version 1 page 2
their stated use as a deterrent to barred route violations. To my mind, this fails two of the tests of CIL Regulation 122(2). First, I have seen little substantive evidence that the payment of BRCs is essential to the operation of the barred routes. They would be enforceable in the same way as any other planning obligation under Section 106. Furthermore, as described below, BRCs have not in practice been sought for substantial periods that the barred routes have been in operation as a result of failures in the ANPR system. As such they fail the test of necessity set by CIL Regulation 122(2)(a). Second, there is no evidence that the scale of the BRCs has been determined with reference to the amount of remediation that is required in the event of a barred route violation taking place or whether such remediation has already been carried out. In fact, there is no substantive evidence to justify the 500 figure at all. Even in respect of the deterrent purpose referred to by the Council, I have seen no assessment of how the relevant figure has been objectively calculated. For example, it is not explained whether lower (or indeed higher) figures were tested and rejected in that context. For these reasons, the sum of 500 therefore appears arbitrary. As such, the obligations do not accord with the requirement of CIL Regulation 122(2)(c) that they should be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Taking both of the above matters together, I have not taken these obligations into account in granting planning permission for the development. They are therefore disapplied for the appeal development. ANPR The Inspector commented as follows However, as a matter of principle, I do not consider that the ANPR system is necessary to ensure that the barred route obligations are effectively enforced. It is open to the Council or HCC, for example, to undertake roadside surveys from time to time. Such monitoring would not, in my view, require a specific condition to be imposed on the present grant of planning permission. As already noted, the ANPR system has been out of operation for significant periods of time and is not fully operational at present. The Council does not argue that such a failure, as a point of principle, renders the overall barred routes system unenforceable. Furthermore, the option to install an additional mechanism to monitor violations on one of the barred routes (the B3408) has not been taken up by HCC. This does not suggest that such monitoring is considered necessary for that particular obligation. In any event, as also described, it is relatively easy for HCV drivers to already use most of the A343 to the north of Andover without passing ANPR equipment. Therefore, while I accept that a fully functioning ANPR system would assist in monitoring compliance with the barred route obligations, it is not essential to their operation. Action: Conclusions In respect of all the BRs, except two the Inspector accepted the need to protect them against the impact of HCVs. Those two exceptions are the A343 south of the A303 and the urban section to the north. In respect of the A342, he did not find the increase in HCV traffic significant and in respect of Monxton Road, and the two B roads, he found TROs would be sufficient and more appropriate. He found the BRC to be legally flawed and expressed doubts about the need for the ANPR. The Chairman was requested to ask guidance from TVBC regarding the decision on the Barred routes Contributions and the comments regarding the need for the Version 1 page 3
ANPR, which in effect could mean no means of policing the Barred Routes and the timetables of the next actions by TVBC PARISH COUNCIL MEETING: 053/18 Chairman s Remarks & Requests for Absences Cllr Carrick requested a possible absence for the next meeting 054/18 Minutes of the last meeting for approval The Minutes were approved. 055/18 Declarations of Interest. None. Items for discussion and consideration: 056/18 Comments and review of AGM/APA The meeting was attended by 9 residents and 2 Borough Councillors. Items raised in question time were as follows: - The issue of ivy on the trees at Newbury Hill. The Clerk confirmed that the removal of ivy from private property could not be undertaken by the Lengthsman. Mr Midgley offered to enquire of the land owners the possibility of having the ivy removed. - Cllr Briant suggested a repeat of the popular Red Cross Training that was carried out during March 2013 with 30 attendees. It was agreed that this should be investigated further. Action: The Clerk will investigate from the Red Cross the suitability for a new course - Two bollards have been placed on the ford whilst the ducks are nesting and in residence. It was agreed that no permanent structure is suitable and that although at times the bollards are removed, they will remain in place for the next month or two in order to safeguard the wildlife. 057/18 Update on SID Cllr Briant presented a thorough review of the Speed Watch and SID (attached separately online with the minutes) Recent sessions had been well attended and successful, Cllr Briant was thanked for his report. (attached separately online with the minutes) The discussions surrounded the possibility of purchase of larger batteries or a solar panel to alleviate the issues of the device stopping through lack of sunlight. It was agreed that further advice should be sought prior to any purchases being made. Action: The Clerk will determine the manufacturer of the unit supplied for the Parish sharing scheme and other manufacturers of SID s to find out is it is possible for another manufacturer to repair/upgrade our device. More volunteers are wanted for the Speed Watch. It was agreed that a poster should be placed at the Fete in July and an additional insertion into the next Newsletter. Cllr Williams kindly offered to show a poster on the stand that he is operating. Action: Clerk to provide poster. Cllrs Millen and Atkinson offered to volunteer. 058/18 Design of Village Emblem Version 1 page 4
A rough outline of the winning design was shown, and possible costs discussed (attached separately online with the minutes) The idea of including on both the village gateways and Penton corner was discussed. It was agreed that comments and interest was required from residents before a definite decision could be made concerning purchasing. An item will be issued within the next Newsletter 059/18 Survey actions update Action: The Clerk will confirm a date for the Village Walkabout, possibly August. 060/18 Councillors Reports: Cllr Carrick reported that Lorries are being seen rarely this month in the old road. Litter at various locations is still too prevalent. A window frame with glass in it has been dumped by the litter bin at the bottom of Hanging Bushes Lane. Action: The Clerk will report. A resident at Penton Corner is regularly ensuring the grass is kept manageable at Hanging Bushes Lane. Work has been conducted by Cllr Carrick and Nevil strimming at the Harrow Way widening the path and removing stinging nettles Nelson s yard continues to cause concern and the fencing is still in a very bad state of disrepair. Finally, Cllr Carrick reported the sad news of Peter Williamson s death. Mr Williamson had been a carpenter and handyman for the village for many years and undertook many roles and work within the Parish in the past for which he will be remembered. 061/18 Clerk Report: Penton Harroway Traffic update & layby Ongoing with HCC. Finance: Snows Timber Yard & Aster Management Many vans are using the village roads and parking along the lane at Snows Yard. The Clerk will again contact TVBC as the traffic is still causing a concern. PMPC RECEIPTS SINCE LAST MEETING 26 th March 2018 (not including AGM) 29 th March Bank 0.12 3 rd April TVBC 567.44 9 th April TVBC 4,000 24 th April TVBC 13,200 30 th April Bank 0.26 8 th May HM Revenue 2,337.73 31 st May Bank 0.82 Version 1 page 5
PMPC PAYMENTS SINCE LAST MEETING 26 th March 2018 13 th March CPRE 36.00 16 th March Premier Grounds 960.00 20 th March Premier Grounds 1,296.00 5 th April Premier Grounds 540.00 5 th April N Colbourne 765.70 5 th April N Colbourne 23.40 18 th April Premier Grounds 168.00 26 th April N Colbourne 171.36 26 th April N Colbourne 75.16 4 th June Came & CO 331.55 4 th June Premier Grounds 840.00 4 th June HCC 59.96 5 th June Bulpitt Print 78.00 PMPC PAYMENT OF CHEQUES SENT BETWEEN LAST MEETING & SIGNED 11 th April N Colbourne 246.52 11 th April Premier Grounds 168.00 21 st May Premier Grounds 840.00 21 st May R Whitmarsh 30.00 21 st May Came & CO 331.55 21 st May HCC 59.96 21 ST May Bulpitt Print 78.00 21 st May LightATouch 42.50 21 st May HALC 187.00 21 ST May N Colbourne 10.80 21 st May N Colbourne 23.40 21 st May N Colbourne 35.00 30 th May P Midgley 8.00 6 th June R Whitmarsh 60.00 6 th June Premier Grounds 672.00 18 th June P Midgley 8.47 PMPC balance end of financial year 31 st March 2018 1,691.05 Comprising of Business Reserve 1,591.05 Plus Current Account 100.00 (including LENGTHSMAN FUNDING balance of - 492) PMPC balance from to 5 th March 5 th April 1,140 PMPC balance from to 5 th April 4 th May 17,715.43 Comprising of Business Reserve 17,615.43 Plus Current Account 100.00 (including LENGTHSMAN FUNDING balance of 13.000) Version 1 page 6
PMPC balance from to 4 th May 5 th June 18,784.47 Comprising of Business Reserve 18,684.47 Plus Current Account 100.00 (including LENGTHSMAN FUNDING balance of 12,300) 062/18 Financial Schedules for approval and signature 3 schedules were approved 063/18 Cheques for signature 1 cheque was signed. Correspondence: (for information only) One letter was circulated at this meeting Any Other Business: (for information only) Cllr Brooks announced that the proposed 20mph Pilot for North Hampshire has not proved a success and will not be rolled out throughout Hampshire. Items for the next agenda: None discussed The New Local Plan amendment has been started by TVBC which is expected to take some years to complete. No further information at this stage. Items to remain on the agenda for future reference: Andover Business Park/ANPR Next Meetings 2018: July 23 rd September 3 rd October 8 th November 12 th December 17 th Version 1 page 7