Minutes of a business meeting of Bursledon Parish Council
held on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 at the Village Hall,
Long Lane, Bursledon at 7.00 p.m
Present :
Cllr Millar (Chair)
Cllr Clarke (Vice Chair)
Cllr Allen
Cllr Craig
Cllr Misselbrook
Cllr Moneypenny
Cllr O’Sullivan
Cllr Woodhouse
In attendance: Mrs Jennifer Whittle (Parish Clerk)
10 members of the public
1. Apologies for absence
Apologies had been received from Cllr Holes, Cllr House, Cllr Lippold
and Cllr Milne.
2. Declarations of interest
Cllr Misselbrook – item 5.4.
Cllr Millar – item 13.
3. Minutes of the meeting of 24 March 2010
Cllr Allen proposed to approve the Minutes as drafted, for signing by
the Chairman. Cllr Moneypenny seconded and Members voted
unanimously in favour.
4. Matters arising from the minutes of 24 March 2010
Cllr Woodhouse requested that it be noted that the Chinese Restaurant
was in the Conservation Area. Cllr Millar made the relevant
amendment and initialled it.
5. Planning applications received from Eastleigh Borough Council
5.1 Serenity, Heath House Lane, Hedge End – Single storey rear
extension & 2no. Dormer windows to front. Case officer:
Nicola Reid. Case ref: F/10/66844.
Cllr Millar introduced this item. He had visited the property, but
could not gain access as the owner was out. He felt the property
was well screened and could personally see no reason to object to the
application.
Cllr Moneypenny proposed DO NOT OBJECT, Cllr Allen seconded. 6
Members voted in favour, Cllr Woodhouse voted against and Cllr Craig
abstained, as she may need to vote at LAC.
5.2 Ardencaple, Bridge Road, Bursledon – Construction of car port
& alterations to garage to provide first floor loft room & modification
to drive. Case officer: Narinder Phagura. Case ref:
F/10/66953.
Members discussed this application. Cllr Moneypenny proposed DO
NOT OBJECT, Cllr Allen seconded and 7 Members voted in favour.
Cllr Craig abstained.
5.3 19 Redcroft Lane, Bursledon – Felling of 1no. Apple tree in
rear garden. Case officer: Tessa Judd. Case ref:
T/10/66933.
Cllr Woodhouse proposed DO NOT OBJECT, Cllr O’Sullivan seconded and
Members voted unanimously in favour.
5.4 Maidenstone Heath, Blundell Lane, Bursledon – Notification of
intent to crown thin 4no. Willows, 13no. Alders, fell 4no. Sycamore &
1no. Hawthorn, pollard 2no. Alders, crown reduce 4no. Alders & coppice
1no. Twisted Hazel. Case officer: Tessa Judd. Case
ref: N/10/66992.
Cllr Clarke proposed DO NOT OBJECT, Cllr Moneypenny seconded. 6
Members voted in favour, Cllr Misselbrook abstained in conjunction with
his declaration of interest and Cllr Craig abstained.
5.5 The Old Rectory, School Road, Bursledon – Notification of
intent to fell 1no. Oak tree & 1no Beech tree & removal of lower limbs
on 1no Maple tree. Case officer: Tessa Judd.
Case ref: N/10/66990.
Cllr Clarke proposed DO NOT OBJECT, Cllr Moneypenny seconded. 7
Members voted in favour and Cllr Craig abstained.
6. Planning decisions notified by Eastleigh Borough Council
6.1 Freehills Cottage, Dodwell Lane, Bursledon – Construction of
double garage with attached wood store. Case Officer: Nicola
Reid. Case Ref: F/10/66609. PERMIT
6.2 Bayridge, Bursledon Road, Hedge End – Single storey rear
extension. Case Officer: Juile Wellstead. Case Ref:
F/10/66605. PERMIT
6.3 Three Oaks, Kew Lane, Bursledon – Construction of box dormer
on rear elevation, following removal of existing dormer windows.
Case Officer: Narinder Phagura. Case Ref: F/10/66610.
PERMIT
6.4 The Coach House, Salterns Lane, Bursledon – Notification of
intent to fell 2no. Leylandii Fir trees and 1no. Portuguese Laurel.
Case Officer: Tessa Judd.
Case ref: N/10/66643. RAISE NO OBJECTION
6.5 Jesmond, Bridge Road, Bursledon – Enclosure of existing
carport to form habitable room & provision of new vehicular access.
Case Officer: Narinder Phagura. Case Ref: F/10/666479.
PERMIT
6.6 Fairport Cottage, Lands End Road, Bursledon – Single Storey
rear extension. Case officer: Siobhan Strand. Case
ref: C/10/66735. PERMIT
6.7 Hamull, High Street, Bursledon – Crown reduction of 1no. Ash,
1no. Monterery Cypress & 1no. Willow tree. Case officer:
Tessa Judd. Case ref: N/10/66814. RAISE NO OBJECTION
The planning decisions were noted.
7. Finance
7.1 To approve Hampshire ALC/NALC combined subscription invoice
payment – the Clerk advised Members that they had previously voted in
favour of cancelling the NALC part of this subscription. The Clerk
had since spoken to Steven Lugg (the Director of Hampshire ALC) who had
advised that as Hampshire ALC and NALC were affiliated BPC could not
cancel the NALC part of the subscription alone. Members
unanimously agreed to the Clerk paying the Hampshire ALC and NALC
subscription fee.
7.2 To approve and sign the payments list and to approve the
monthly accounts, summary income and expenditure by budget heading, and
balance sheet. (Papers previously circulated to Members).
Cllr Allen proposed, Cllr Moneypenny seconded and Members voted
unanimously to approve and sign the payments list and approve the
monthly accounts.
8. PLANNING AID PRESENTATION ON SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC
Ellie Evans from Planning Aid introduced herself and advised that she is
a qualified Chartered Town Planner working for Planning Aid, who are a
charity that helps members of the public to understand the planning
system and deal with any problems they may have. Planning Aid are
open from Monday to Friday. Ellie then presented a slide show,
which the Clerk confirmed would be available at the Parish Office for
any members of the public wishing to view the same. Ellie felt
that the public should be aware of two consultations which would prove
important to them; one was the Draft Core Strategy, which would shape
how the local authority makes their planning decisions and the other was
the Hedge End SDA consultation in September 2012, which is to discuss
the mass development proposed for the Hedge End area, which will have a
knock on effect for neighbouring areas. Ellie then invited
questions.
Ron Grassie, a member of the public, felt that residents carrying out
work at the weekends (without Planning Permission), in order to avoid
Planning Officers catching them, should be stopped. Ellie advised
that the public should report such incidents, so that the Planning
Officer concerned can inspect the site and any work carried out without
Planning Permission will then need retrospective Planning Permission.
Cllr Woodhouse queried whether Planning Aid offered free advice and
whether they were charging to attend this meeting. Ellie confirmed
they do offer free advice to the public (if their circumstances warrant
it) and that she was attending this meeting free of charge.
9. MOTION BY CLLR MISSELBROOK THAT THE CCTV AT LOWFORD IS REMOVED
BY BPC FROM THE COMMERCIAL PREMISES
Cllr Misselbrook informed Members and the public that he had asked for
this motion to be added to the Agenda, as a consequence of the
continuous problems associated with BPC managing the CCTV equipment
located on the car sales premises in Lowford. He felt that the
CCTV now protected the commercial premises more than the general public
and that BPC should not be paying the costly maintenance fees or
subjecting itself to the associated risks relating to managing the CCTV
equipment. Cllr Misselbrook advised that he had downloaded the
Home Office CCTV Guidance Notes and felt that BPC needed to remove the
CCTV installed by them forthwith and advise commercial premises that
they must install their own security systems to protect their premises;
with the possibility of BPC making a small contribution to their initial
set up costs.
Cllr Allen felt that the CCTV was installed by BPC to protect the
general public and that BPC should not be protecting commercial
premises.
Cllr Woodhouse felt that Bursledon residents would not want to the lose
the Post Office and felt the CCTV was installed to protect the Post
Office. Cllr Millar advised that it was not; BPC had installed it
to protect the general public, as there had been a much higher crime
rate when the system was installed. Cllr Millar said crime had
been vastly reduced by the PCSOs patrolling the area regularly.
Cllr Clarke felt that the CCTV was causing continual problems for BPC
(with cost implications), the latest of which is an allegation relating
to the management of equipment. He felt that if the CCTV was
mainly protecting commercial premises, who were not happy about the
system, that BPC should remove the equipment. Cllr Millar pointed
out that it was the set up and access that was being complained about.
Cllr Allen said that the CCTV had not costed BPC anything, as it had
been purchased through a grant. The Clerk felt that BPC had made a
contribution and pointed out that BPC were paying the quarterly
maintenance costs of the equipment, which were not cheap.
Cllr Millar suggested that he would like to have the CCTV monitoring
carried out by the Parish Office, but the Clerk was not keen. The
Clerk pointed out that a Police Sergeant had recommended that the Clerk,
as a lone worker in an isolated office, should not monitor the CCTV, as
images passed to the Police (where a court case was pending) would
require the Clerk to attend court and this may put her at risk
afterwards. The Clerk also said the time element would be
considerable.
Cllr Holes felt that the CCTV places a lot of responsibility on BPC and
is now servicing the shops more than the general public. He
advised that the CCTV was initially installed because of nuisance
associated with the youth shelter, which is now gone. Cllr
Misselbrook felt that BPC should make the decision about whether to
disconnect the CCTV or not outside of the public meeting, as this
information should not be for general public consumption.
Cllr Craig proposed that BPC should investigate the legal requirements
and risks involved in managing the CCTV equipment at Lowford and then
Members could make a decision outside of the public meetings on whether
to keep the equipment or not; the Clerk should then write to the shop
owners notifying them of the outcome. Cllr Allen seconded and
Members voted unanimously in favour. ACTION: CLERK.
10. MOTION BY CLLR WOODHOUSE THAT BPC MAKES SERIOUS EFFORTS TO
REDUCE ITS SPENDING
Cllr Millar asked Cllr Woodhouse whether this item could be deferred
until the next Full Council Meeting, as this meeting was running very
late. Cllr Woodhouse confirmed that it could, but said she would
like to read her notes at this meeting and for them to be minuted, so
that Members and the public knew her concerns:
“What is best for parishioners?
I propose that we need to make economical changes to BPC’s housekeeping
arrangements. In these changing times whilst families have had to
tighten their belts, unfortunately Council Tax bills have not. Are
we not behind with the times? Are we not giving our parishioners
good value for money?
I am very uncomfortable about the confidential approach to the handling
of our accounts. I would like to see proper transparency in our
Parish Council accounting.
If we as a Parish Council can make cost cutting changes successfully,
whilst also ensuring a good service from us the Parish Council for our
parishioners, then we would be in a stronger position to approach HCC
and EBC and ask them to make savings for our parishioners as well.
If Parish Councillors are in agreement to this proposal to reduce our
expenditures, I would like to put forward some thoughts I have and ask
the Chairman to open the floor for all Councillors to discuss possible
savings in our housekeeping over future years. Just a thought –
less can be more”.
11 DEVOLVEMENT OF COUNCIL SERVICES
11.1 Peewit Hill – to consider and make a decision on EBC’s boundary
survey results – the Clerk had forwarded Members a copy of the survey
results of the surveyor employed by Eastleigh Borough Council, which
identified that the boundary on the ground was not the same at that
represented by Eastleigh Borough Council’s deeds. Cllr Craig, who
lives in the properties behind the woods, advised that the surveyor’s
boundary is not correct either. Members generally felt that BPC
should not adopt land that has outstanding boundary disputes/problems.
Cllr Clarke proposed that BPC should not accept either of the
boundaries, as there still appears to be some dispute; he proposed that
the Clerk writes to EBC, asking them to liaise between themselves, the
residents and the surveyor to try and resolve this matter and come up
with a mutually amicable boundary line to be transferred to BPC.
ACTION: CLERK.
11.2 Service Level Agreement – to approve the revised SLA and
decide whether the addition of tree works should be included in the SLA.
Cllr Millar was not happy with the fact that the Service Level Agreement
fee had been increased so much, as EBC were not incurring additional
staff/inflation costs. Members were also not happy that BPC was
now being asked to pay £50 per hour for tree advice, which was
originally included in the fee. Cllr Millar proposed that BPC
should hold a separate finance meeting at which this could be discussed
in detail. Cllr Holes seconded. 7 Members voted in favour,
with Cllrs Moneypenny and Woodhouse objected. ACTION: CLERK.
12. TO APPROVE THE DRAFT NEWSLETTER FOR APRIL TO JUNE 2010
Cllr Moneypenny proposed to approve the Newsletter as drafted.
Cllr Craig seconded and Members voted unanimously in favour.
ACTION: CLERK.
13. GRANT APPLICATION BY ROTARY CLUB OF SOUTHAMPTON EAST FOR £150
Members felt that following Cllr Woodhouse’s previous suggestion to
reduce the number of grants made, they must make stricter controls on
who receives grants. Cllr Millar declared an interest, as he is
friends with one of the managers of the Rotary Club.
Cllr Moneypenny proposed not to make a grant to the Rotary Club, Cllr
Allen seconded. 5 Members voted in favour and 4 Members abstained
(Cllrs Clarke, Craig, Holes and Millar). ACTION: CLERK.
14. TO APPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN FOR THE REVISED SITE OF THE VIEW
POINT
The Clerk reminded Members that she had had a site meeting with Mr
Horne, who had asked if the View Point could be relocated, as he was
considering selling the field where the View Point was currently
located; he wished to relocate the View Point to the corner of the same
field, in order that it was easier for him to sell the remainder.
The Clerk pointed out that BPC currently had no formal legal rights over
the View Point, as this had previously been made available to BPC, as a
gesture of goodwill by Mr Horne. The Clerk pointed out that Mr
Horne was not looking for payment for the new area, but wished to make a
formal legal agreement to protect the land in the future as a viewing
point for the general public. Members unanimously agreed that this
was a very kind and generous offer by Mr Horne.
The Clerk advised that she had prepared draft location/layout plans
(which had been circulated to Members and the public) and which
hopefully made the best use of the proposed new area, protecting the
safety of users and ensuring maximum uninterrupted views. The
Clerk asked Members for any suggestions and/or comments should they feel
the design could be improved in any way. She also advised that Mr
Horne would like BPC to approach Bursledon Infant and Junior Schools
when the design has been finalised to perhaps design some sort of
plaque/mosaic, in order that they could become involved and make this a
community project. Members unanimously agreed with this
suggestion.
Cllr Clarke proposed to approve the draft location and layout plans as
drafted and for the Clerk to approach Mr Horne for his comments, before
applying to EBC for Planning Permission. Cllr Moneypenny seconded
and Members voted unanimously in favour. ACTION: CLERK.
15. Correspondence
15.1 Paris Smith had written to advise that the Transfers of
Lionheart Way and Bursledon Station Woods to Bursledon Parish Council
had now been completed and registered with HM Land Registry.
15.2 Parish Smith had also written to advise that the Transfer of
the Pilands Wood Play Areas to Bursledon Parish Council had been
completed and they were now in the process of registering the same.
16. COUNCILLORS’ QUESTIONS
There were no matters arising.
The meeting closed at 8.15 pm.