EFFINGHAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Minutes of Meeting

Held in the Parish Room on 16th July 2015

 

Present:             Chairman                        Chris Dick

                           Secretary                        David King

                           James Brennan, Vivien White, Howard Manton, Kay Palmer

                           Visitor: Cliff Hackett, Parish Councillor

1. Apologies: Liz Hogger, Juliet Newton-Smith, James Wetenhall, R.McKinney

  

2. Minutes of previous meeting: 11-6-15, approved. “Background concerns” in App. A will not be published on the website.

    

3. Matters Arising:

• 3 Letter to SCC is drafted and ready for CD signature, sending and copying to committee.

KP has given copy emails to VW and is endeavouring to obtain more.

• 4 Catholic Hall verge: Action outstanding DK

 

4. Planning:

15/P/00812/13 Upper Leewood Farm Application refused 3-7-15. It was noted that the grounds for refusal could equally apply to ELF (Effingham Lodge Farm).

 

Berkeley/Howard: Still under consideration. No news or further issues to discuss.

15/P/01259 Tollgate Farm New appln.   DK/JNS to review and make recommendations to committee on whether or not to object; EFFRA objected to the previous application.

Leewood Park The committee agreed that EFFRA would not support the extensive development proposed (approx. 30 buildings providing approx. 120/130 dwellings)

4A Effingham Neighbourhood Plan

There was extensive discussion and comment. The salient points of agreement arising were as follows:

1. Concern that EPC and EFFRA were not in unison re. ELF. The committee agreed but felt that the results of the EFFRA questionnaire in Aug. 2014 were overwhelmingly clear that residents do not favour building on ELF.  The draft NP has to be put to the residents for approval. It seems perverse to propose a site in the NP which it is known that residents do not favour.

2. Guidance from CPRE indicates that simply allocating 10 points maximum out of 100 points total in the EPC criteria is totally unacceptable. CPRE are likely to object. It was agreed that Green Belt status should be marked against the NPPF criteria (see App. A) and allocated 50 points out of 100 total.

3. Basically EFFRA do not agree with the scoring points EPC have used, or indeed the blanket criterion for GB status.

4. From EFFRA review and research of other Neighbourhood Plans of other villages, it is not necessary to include defined sites. BUT if sites are included, EFFRA considers the whole process used to date must be reviewed, refined and re-visited.

5. The Committee’s view was that it would be wiser to omit actual sites from the NP. VW to draft a letter to A. Pindar (Chairman), copy P. Moss (Co-ordinator), with this recommendation and including CPRE comments and advice. The letter to be circulated to committee for comment/approval before sending over CD name.

5. Press: DK reported no significant items in local newspapers.

6. Treasurer: Current account stands at £1858, deposit at £3801. Nothing significant to report.

7. Website: Committee approved £35 to be paid to the technician; action JNS

                   Number of hits is down on previous months, possibly owing to holiday period.

8. Other meetings: CD attended the following meetings:

• EPC — nothing significant to report.

• EVRT AGM — 21 present, mostly EPFA members. The meeting was genial without acrimony.

• CPRE AGM — there was an excellent talk by “The Open Space Soc.” showing great knowledge of commons and village greens legislation; it is worth looking at their website.

There was also an excellent video re. Cherkeley Court; CD to try to obtain copy for interest.

           Tim Harrold (CPRE) expressed concern that we do not have a membership fee and thus a membership list. This could reduce, or even negate, EFFRA’s legitimacy in the event of EFFRA making a legal challenge. Cliff H. suggested that EFFRA consult the Information Commissioner’s office for guidance. J NS may have already so done; JNS to advise.

 

9. Constitution: DK action; no discussion.

10. AOB

 

10.1 KP reported that a leather goods maker wishes to advertise on EFFRA website and also to have a leaflet delivered with EFFRA Oct. Newsletter. The maker would also like to advertise on the website. KP to circulate proposals on this and regarding our regular advertisers including website advert fees.

DK to include advertising as an item on the agenda for next meeting.

10.2 JB raised query as to how relevant EPC is so far as GBC is concerned. CD responded that EPC is a statutory body with tax (precept) raising ability and must be consulted and listened to.

 

 

***********************************************

Next meeting: Parish Room, Thurs. 10-9-15 (DK not available)

***********************************************

1. J. King (Hon. Sec.)                                                                              iss: 01 (20-7-15)

Appendix A

All sites to be screened against 3 core questions:

• Is this site beyond reasonable proximity to the current settlement area?

           If yes, the site is rejected

• Would use of this site detrimentally impact or result in the loss of a community asset?

           If yes, the site is rejected

• Is the site a current employer or viable business?

           If no, the site is rejected due to threat of future infilling

Remaining sites then reviewed and graded for suitability against 6 key criteria:

 

• Impact on Conservation Area

• Previously developed

• Impact on wildlife and archaeological status

• Impact on resident amenity

• Impact on Conservation Area

• Suitable geology of site

Criteria for ranking of sites:

Suitability                               available                                              Scoring notes

                                                   points

 

Previously developed                     10                         10 = already has blgs. of permanent nature

                                                                                       0 = completely greenfield

Impact on CA or heritage asset     10                        10 = outside CA/no heritage impact

                                                                                       0 = within CA and potentially high impact on

                                                                                      heritage asset

Impact on resident amenity             10                         10 = little or no impact

                                                                                       0 = site with views that support purpose and

                                                                                       character of Green Belt – open far reaching

                                                                                       views

Direct access to exits (minimal     10                         10 = sites that afford opportunity to exit village

Impact on Lower road,                                                 with less direct impact on village centre

roundabouts, The Street)                                              0 = can only funnel traffic on to rdbts. or

                                                                                     The Street

Archaeological/wildlife                 10                         10 = site not close to strategic gaps or sites of

importance                                                                   high archaeological value

                                                                                       0 = close to strategic gap, wildlife corridor

                                                                                     or archaeological value

Suitability of geology of site         10                           10 = sites that are further from the spring lines,

                                                                                      sand and known bands of poor geological strata

                                                                                         0 = close proximity to acquifer, spring line,

                                                                                      sand bands

                                                   ______

                         Total                     60

SHLA ISSUES

Availibilty                                      10

Achievability                                 10

Flood risk                                       10

Green Belt                                     10

                                   total           40