LITTON CHENEY PARISH COUNCILDraft Minutes of the meeting of Litton Cheney Parish Councilheld on Tuesday 11 September at Litton and Thorner's Community HallPresent: Bill Orchard (Chairman); Andy King; Bella Spurrier; Tessa Mulhall; Maggie Walsh (Clerk). Also in attendance: Cllr John Russell, Cllr Mark Roberts and 8 local residents.1.Apologies: Kathryn Brooks, John Firrell; Steve Kourik;2.Declarations of interest: none3.Democratic time the following issues were raised:The allotment fence proposed for replacement was not erected by the Parish Council and the Parish Council was not responsible for maintaining it. Should the PC spend £1,400 of public funds on it?If the fence were not replaced, crops would be eaten and allotment holders would abandon their plots.4.Approval of Minutes of Parish Council meeting held on 10 July - it was proposed by Cllr King, seconded by Cllr Spurrier and carried unanimously that the minutes be approved.5.Matters arising from previous meeting not covered at this meeting: The nuisance caused by flies had been raised at the previous meeting. The PC subsequently contacted Environmental Health, who said they would investigate if the level of nuisance materially affected villagers’ lives. The PC would evaluate the scale of the problem before deciding whether or not to pursue the matter further. 6.DCC/WDDC overview – Cllr John Russell reported that the shadow authority had a large agenda to get through. Cllr Mark Roberts added that there was a shadow executive of 20 Councillors, most of whom were “champion” to a particular work stream. An enormous amount of work was required behind the scenes and there was insufficient officer time to get through it all – e.g. around 15,000 staff had to be transferred to the new unitary authority under TUPE rules. There would effectively be a period of limbo between 1 April, when the new Unitary came into effect, and the elections in May. Several authorities had commented on the recent consultation on proposed parish boundary changes – the outcome was yet to be published. The new Chief Executive would be confirmed on 27 September.7.Finance report – RFO The finance report had been circulated with the agenda. Parish funds currently stood at £7,695.19 (£8,276.31 general fund and -£581.12 playground). Approved spend since July’s meeting was £966.16 comprising £565.99 clerk’s salary and the following invoices approved at the last meeting: £140.17 DAPTC subscription, £35 GDPR registration and £225 donations (£75 each to the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, Bride Valley News and Bridport Citizens Advice Bureau). The BVN and CAB had thanked Litton Cheney PC for the donations. Income since May’s meeting was 21p interest.Invoices for approval: there would be an invoice of £95 for the playground inspection once the inspection had taken place and a report received. It was proposed by Cllr King, seconded by Cllr Spurrier and carried unanimously that this be approved.In addition, the Clerk wished to attend a DAPTC course on budgets and precepts at a cost of £40. It was proposed by Cllr Orchard, seconded by Cllr Spurrier and carried unanimously that this be approved.After allowing for known commitments and income (but excluding any expenditure that might be approved by Parish Councillors for allotment fencing) there was currently an anticipated year end surplus of income over expenditure of approximately £2,200. However, at this stage of the financial year, additional, currently unidentified costs, were likely to arise.8.Councillors’ portfolios: Cllr Orchard reported that, since the last meeting, there had been a change in portfolio arrangements: Cllr Brooks had taken on responsibility for Planning and Cllr Mulhall had taken on responsibility for Risk Assessment, Transparency and Data Protection. Highways/Transport (Bill Orchard): Together with John Firrell he had met with the Bridport Town Council Surveyor to look at the collapsed stream opposite Charity Farm. The PC felt the stream should be piped at this point to avoid recurrence of the problem, but Dorset County Council were averse to this. Fortunately the summer had been dry but the stream would overflow when rainfall increased and would become a significant hazard when the water froze. Bridport TC would liaise directly with DCC over a permanent solution. Cllr Roberts also undertook to follow this up.MRMeanwhile, temporary repairs would be made until a permanent solution could be found. Costs and specification were awaited.The weekly Wednesday and fortnightly Saturday bus services would continue until the end of 2018 when it would be reviewed. The PC were grateful to Dorset Community Transport for providing this service. Wessex Water had completed the mains replacement works and left the village.Playground/Playing Field/Allotments (Andy King): someone had hung a carrier bag for rubbish in the playground and had removed the rubbish. There had been no further reports of dog excrement in the playing field nor had he seen any. If the situation continued, he would propose at November’s meeting that the trial arrangements with regard to dogs be made permanent, at which point the signage would be updated. He planned to alter the gate so children using the playground found it easier to open.AKHe noted the comments made during democratic time. He had understood that the PC had erected the internal perimeter fence. However, he shared concerns that the allotments would fall vacant if the fence were not replaced, in which event the PC could be responsible for clearing/maintaining the site. At the last meeting, he had reported on 3 comparable quotes to replace the fencing - £4,556, £4,250 and approximately £2,000. Following this he had gone back to all three contractors, only one of whom (the latter ) submitted a cheaper quote of £1,450 for an amended scheme which involved folding, rather than burying the bottom of the fence. The work could be completed after September. Cllr King proposed that the PC pay the initial expenditure to enable the work to be completed whilst external funding was sought. This was seconded by Cllr Orchard and unanimously approved.AKFootpaths/Rights of Way/Mobile Phone Mast (Cllr Orchard on behalf of Steve Kourik): Vodaphone had indicated their users should have a signal in the next 2 to 3 months.Planning (Clerk Maggie Walsh on behalf of Kathryn Brooks): there were 5 outstanding planning matters:Land adjacent to Four Meads Farm (WD/D/16/001006): the barn erected did not accord with the approved plans and so an application to vary the consent was awaited.Charity Farm – erection of agricultural building – prior approval (WD/D/18/001183): the building was constructed before prior consent was obtained and so full planning permission was now required. There will be an opportunity to comment once a valid application has been submitted.Charity Farm – erection of 6 dwellings (WD/D/17/00758): the S106 agreement was still being prepared. No decision could be issued until the S106 is in place.Parks Farm Cheese Dairy – effluent lake (WD/D/17/002317): awaiting an update from the case officer Ourganics – application to modify S106 agreement (WD/D/18/000124): awaiting an update from the case officer.Since the last meeting, the following applications had been approved.5 The Paddocks, erect garden and utility room (WD/D/18/001240): approved 6 AugustBarges Cottage, Hinds Mead Lane – erect rear porch (WD/D/18/000424): confirmation of compliance approved 30 July.Risk Assessment/Transparency Code/Annual Report (Tessa Mulhall): nothing to report.Agricultural Liaison (Bella Spurrier): nothing to reportVillage Fabric/Maintenance/Devolved Services (Cllr Orchard on behalf of John Firrell): several jobs had been completed by volunteers (AKA “the Premier Crew”) – they had done sterling work and their efforts were appreciated. A list of jobs had been sent to the Bridport Lengthsman Team who would carry out the tasks as part of the ongoing agreement with Bridport Town Council. Several tasks relating to repairs to village furniture would be carried out by competent local residents, specialised contractors or suppliers in keeping with the PC's financial projections. There was still no information about what tasks may devolve to the PC under the new Unitary authority, however, many tasks such as street cleaning and verge clearing seemed to have tailed off. For information, the PC is not responsible for the village website, although it does provide a lot of information. The website is run by the Litton Cheney Web Group who were currently in the process of reviewing the website: it was hoped local residents would consider the changes an improvement.Village Installation Board update: Several villagers had met to discuss content, construction and location but this would be widened to include additional villagers with relevant interests. It was felt it should include the involvement of Thorner's Primary School Children.100th anniversary of the WW1 Armistice update: this event would not be driven by the PC but organised by various organisations in the village including St Mary’s Parochial Church Council, Litton and Thorner’s Community Hall, Thorner’s Primary School, The White Horse, Social Committee, Bride Valley Scout Group and the Parish Council as a collective. A meeting had taken place and planning was at an early stage. Villagers would be kept informed via the village website, Bride Valley News and other appropriate means.9.War Memorial: the Grade II listed WW1/WW2 war memorial needed maintenance as the lettering had faded. The Litton Cheney Trust may contribute and the PC would investigate whether S106 Museum funds could be used. Grants may be available. The War Memorials Trust indicated that paint could be used to highlight the lead lettering. It was possible the work could be carried out by local people with relevant skills. Cllr Orchard proposed that the PC approve the principle of renovating the war memorial, with costs and details to be approved at a later date. This was seconded by Cllr Spurrier and carried unanimously.10.Should there be a Village Assembly to establish whether villagers wished to revisit its decision not to proceed with a Neighbourhood Plan in light of Cllr Yarker’s comments at the previous meeting? Cllr Orchard summarised the current planning position with regard to the 5 year housing land supply and the pros and cons of a Neighbourhood Plan. There was considerable debate after which most Parish Councillors felt that there was little credible change/insufficient new evidence to suggest a further consultation would give a different outcome. It was therefore agreed there would be no Village Assembly to discuss this matter.11.Correspondence not dealt with as part of the agenda. There is a WDDC Local Plan Options consultation on the preferred options to meet future growth. Details were on the Dorset For You website. The consultation ends on 8 October after which all the views would be considered and there would be a further consultation regarding changes made.12.Planning Applications pending: no new planning applications for consideration.13.Date of next meeting – Tuesday 13 November – apologies Cllrs King and Mulhall14.Meeting closedMaggie Walsh - Parish Clerk
Minutes of Parish Council Planning Meeting held on 10th October 2018
LITTON CHENEY PARISH COUNCILMinutes of the Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting held on Wednesday 10 October 2018at Litton and Thorner's Community Hall, Litton CheneyPresent: W. Orchard (Chairman), S. Kourik (Deputy Chairman), K. Brooks, J Firrell, A. King, A. Spurrier, M. Walsh (Clerk), A. Stone (agent), A. Romans (applicant), District Cllr J. Russell and 18 local residents.1.Apologies: T. Mulhall and 2 local residents2.To consider planning application WD/D/18/001959 – land west of Tithe Barn House – erect new dwelling and garage3.Declarations of interest: the Chairman had received one request for dispensation from Cllr Spurrier, who owns Cross Trees House in Chalk Pit Lane. The definition of pecuniary interest was "reasonable likelihood or expectation of an appreciable financial loss or gain”. In his view, Cllr Spurrier’s property was sufficiently far away that this did not apply and he proposed that dispensation to both discuss and vote on the application be granted. The proposal was seconded by Cllr Kourik and carried unanimously by the Parish Council. There were no other declarations of interest.4.The Chairman invited the applicant's architect/agent Andrew Stone (AS) to present the details of the planning application to the Parish Council and those attending. AS gave an overview of the proposed development and circulated copies of plans:It was a small/average sized 3 bedroom house of 140m2.He had designed it to look like a traditional labourer’s house.It followed the building line of other properties in Chalk Pit Lane.It utilised the existing site entrance used by Wessex Water during their recent works in the village.The site would be screened by the existing hedge and new trees planted.There would be a timber framed garage to the front of the house, behind the hedge.An oil tank would be located between the garage and the hedge.The recent Housing Need Assessment had shown substantial need for a property of that size.The proposed site seemed a “natural” location for a dwelling to him.He was conscious of the need to preserve the landscape but felt the proposed house would not make an impact.5.The Chairman invited those attending to use “democratic time” to ask questions of AS and Andy Romans (AR) prior to the Parish Council going into “closed session” to consider their submission to WDDC. Questions and statements (Q) and the agent’s/applicant’s responses (R) are summarised below:Q. Why was the proposed dwelling 2 storey when others along Chalk Pit Lane were single storey?R. 2 storeys were more appropriate to the village than a bungalow.Q. The site was elevated and the proposed dwelling would appear prominent when viewed from across the valley, compared to other buildings in Chalk Pit Lane. Had levels been taken?A. AS did not believe the design was excessively high. Levels had been taken but there were no plans showing levels.Q. The proposal was in the wrong location within the AONB. It was understood that issues with the 5 year housing land supply may result in applications for infill development within the village but this was outside the village – if this were allowed where would it stop? Concern about precedent/further proposed dwellings beside/behind the proposed dwelling or elsewhere outside the village.R. AS agreed that the countryside should be protected but felt the balance was currently wrong – new housing was needed – where else could it be built? There was always a risk that properties may lose countryside views through further development.Q. Why this particular site and not others within the applicant’s ownership that might be considered more appropriate? A. AS had not chosen the site and was not aware of any other sites. AR the question was not relevant: the meeting was to discuss the current application.Q. The large employer referred to in the planning statement employed predominantly transient foreign nationals. There was considerable agreement that there should be more affordable housing for young families in the village, but that the proposed dwelling would not be affordable to them. Concern that the proposed house would be purchased as a second home.A. AS agreed that anyone would be able to purchase the dwelling.Q. The purpose of the HNA was to determine the type of affordable housing needed at Charity Farm and could not be applied to the current application for market housing. Of the 22 who had indicated a housing need within the village, only 3 said they could pay more than £180,000.Q. There were already 12-14 houses for sale in the parish, some had been for sale for some time.A. Houses for sale did not equate into an increase in housing stock.Q. The proposed house was actually quite large, not small/average as claimed. Nor was it accurate to represent it as a labourers building – historically, farm workers would not have occupied such a buildingA. The design was intended to be traditional rather than modern. AS accepted that farm labourers would not traditionally have occupied such a dwellingQ. Proposals for new dwellings should include renewable energy such as solar panels, heat exchange.Q. Why was the proposal for a rendered dwelling rather than stone, which was felt to me more in keeping?A. Render was less costly and was also traditional.Cllr Orchard invited Cllr Russell to give his views: he had nothing to say about the application but confirmed that decisions were being taken on the basis of the Local Plan at present.Cllr Brookes had recently attended a WDDC Planning Briefing and reported that villages with no Defined Development Boundary would be expected to take a minimum growth of 2% over a 20 year period. This equated to approximately 5 houses for Litton Cheney and the 7 dwellings due for approval at Charity Farm already exceeded this.6.There being no more questions or comments, Cllr Orchard ended democratic time to enable Parish Councillors to consider the comments made.Cllr Orchard reminded Parish Councillors that Local Plan Policy was that villages such as Litton Cheney with no Defined Development Boundary should have no new dwellings other than affordable dwellings. It was suggested that other dwellings on Chalk Pit Lane had infilled up to, but not past Tithe Barn House. Parish Councillors discussions echoed the views of villagers, specifically that:The proposed house was in the wrong location outside the village limits. Had it been within the village it would have been viewed more favourably. The site was in a prominent location within an AONB. There was also concern that the agent had implied that the site was brownfield – AS clarified he had said it seemed a “natural” location for a house and had not suggested it was brownfield. The application did not meet any criteria of either the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) nor the Local Plan.Applications were currently being determined in accordance with Local Plan Policies. Last year, Litton Cheney residents voted not to proceed with a Neighbourhood Plan on the basis that the Local Plan provided sufficient protection against inappropriate development within the village.The housing need assessment referred to by the agent had been to determine the type of affordable housing most appropriate for the Charity Farm development. It could not be used to justify the need for market housing. Parish Councillors questioned the need for market housing within the village, given the number of properties for sale.It was therefore proposed by Cllr Orchard, seconded by Cllr King and carried unanimously that the Parish Council OBJECT to the proposed application for the following reasons and to include additional requests should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve the application.1.The proposed dwelling would lie beyond the existing built limits of the village in open countryside, and within an AONB. The proposed dwelling would be neither affordable nor of “exceptional quality”, nor is there any evidenced need for an agricultural dwelling. The proposal is therefore contrary to NPPF paras 79 and 11.2.The Local Plan allows only for affordable housing in villages with no defined development boundary, such as Litton Cheney. The proposed dwelling would therefore be contrary to policy SUS2 of the adopted Local Plan. 3.The proposed dwelling would occupy an elevated position within an AONB and would be prominently visible from footpaths W12/10 (Chalk Pit Lane to the pub); W12/4 (School Lane to Cox's Lane); W12/11 (Chalk Pit Lane to West End Farm). The site is also visible from various locations in the village including the White Horse PH, School Lane, Ashley Chase Estate (Park’s Farm) and Cox's Lane. From further afield, the site is visible from Looke Lane and from Puncknowle.In 2017, Litton Cheney residents voted not to proceed with a Neighbourhood Plan, instead placing their trust in Local Plan Policy. Should WDDC be minded to approve the application, the Parish Council ask that the Local Planning Authority a)request additional plans showing site levels and, if significantly higher than other properties further down Chalk Pit Lane, seek a reduction in height.b)require the building to be constructed in stone, rather than rendered, as it is felt stone is more in keeping with the village vernacular.7.Meeting closed.Maggie WalshParish Clerk
Agenda for Parish Council Meeting on 13th November
LITTON CHENEY PARISH COUNCILA Meeting of the Litton Cheney Parish Council will be heldat 7.30 pm on Tuesday 13 November 2018 at Litton and Thorner’s Community Hall 1.Apologies for absence2.Declarations of interest3.Democratic time4.Approval of minutes of Parish Council meeting held on 11 September 2018 Approval of minutes of Parish Council extraordinary meeting held on 10 October 20185.Matters arising that are part of this Agenda6.DCC/WDDC overview Cllrs Keith Day/Mark Roberts & Cllr John Russell7.Finance Report; update on setting precept for 2018/19 and recommendation to vire money from general fund to specific reserves (appended) 8.Councillors Portfolios: Highways/Transport (Chairman); Playground/ Field/Allotments (Mr A. King); Footpaths/RoW/Mobile Phone (Mr S. Kourik); Agricultural Liaison (Mrs A. Spurrier); Planning (Mrs K Brooks); Risk Assessment/Transparency/Data Protection (Mrs T Mulhall); Village Fabric/ Maintenance/Devolved Services (Mr J. Firrell). To include the following:The Rocks – update on remedial works due to commence on 14 November. The barriers and turnstiles will be unaffected by these works except temporarily from Church Path whilst for access. Proposal, following recent trial period, to permanently allow dogs on playing field, providing they are kept on a leadReport on recent playground inspectionUpdate on stream bank opposite Charity Farm – the PC, Dorset County Council and Mr Romans have been working towards resolving this problem and further information will be provided at the meeting.9.Election of new deputy chairman10.Correspondence not dealt with as part of agenda: •Consider request for donation to upkeep of cemetery – the Parish Council contributed £500 in recent years11.Planning matters pending and outcomesNew applicationsWD/D/18/002298 (Full) and WD/D/18/002299 (Listed Building) THE MILL HOUSE, MAIN STREET, DT2 9AP Erection of extension and alterations and construction of a new bridge and vehicular access12.Date of next meeting – Tuesday 8 January 201913.Meeting closedMaggie Walsh, Parish ClerkPrecept & ReservesWork to determine the Parish precept for the 2019-2020 financial year is at an early stage but at this stage it is unlikely there will be a significant increase. A full report and recommendation will be published before the Parish Council meeting of 8 January, at which a decision will be made. Early work however has highlighted action required with regard to reserves. (All councils hold reserves to protect against unforeseen expenditure and spread significant costs over several years.)The Litton Cheney precept was raised significantly for this and last year, partly in anticipation of increased costs arising from local government reorganisation. This means PC reserves have increased and are estimated to be £7,400 at the end of this year. Best accounting practice is that the general reserve fund should not exceed approximately 3-4 months expenditure and that, beyond this, reserves should be ringfenced for specific purposes. After analysing historic and anticipated exceptional expenditure, it is recommended that funds are vired from the general reserve fund into ringfenced reserves as follows:It is important to note that this relates to how existing funds are allocated and does not involve any additional expenditure. The Parish Council can, in future, formally decide to vire funds between reserves should they not be required for the purpose for which they are ringfenced.