Kingsley
Parish Council
Minutes of the Full Council Meeting
Thursday 28th September 2006 - 8:00pm
in the Kingsley Centre
Present: |
In Attendance: F. Witney - Clerk D. Griffiths - Environmental Protection Officer (Animal Welfare), EHDC Cllr W. Womack - District Councillor, EHDC 20 Members of the public |
| 06/81 Chairman’s Opening Remarks: |
| Cllr Neville welcomed all to the meeting. |
| 06/82 Public participation |
| Mrs
M Comber referred to Minute 06/68 from the meeting held on 26th July 2006
and commented that the matter was concerned with public rights of access
over which she was in no position to adjudicate, she had brought the matter
to the Parish Council to deal with and therefore she did not feel it was
appropriate for her to meet with the owners as suggested. Cllr Neville
agreed that the matter would be put back on the agenda for the next meeting.
A question was raised about why there was opposition to dragons teeth being installed on the track from the D shaped area at Sandrock on the Common, with reference to Minute 06/67 of the meeting held on 26th July 2006. This was answered by reference to the Minute which stated that Mr Peet was due to consult with the residents about the installation of the dragons teeth beforehand but there was an intention to proceed once they had seen the proposed siting. |
| 06/83 Apologies for Absence |
| None |
| 06/84 Declarations of Interest |
| None |
| 06/85 Approval of Minutes of Meeting 26th July 2006 |
| Proposed:
Cllr Seeckts Seconded: Cllr Herbert The minutes were duly authorised and signed as a true record of the meeting. |
| 06/86 Matters Arising |
| Upper
Green Planting Cllr Neville asked for agreement to spend up to £200 on new plants with stakes to provide some barrier along the side where a path had been trodden down the bank from the bus stop and to replace those plants which had not survived from last year's planting. Proposed: Cllr Herbert Seconded: Cllr Carryer MOD Proposals re restricting vehicular access to Kingsley Common The meeting agreed to at the last Parish Council meeting had taken place and Cllr Neville read out a draft letter he proposed to send to the Commandant at Bordon. In response, Cllr Herbert asked whether it was the case that illegal activities of quadbiking etc. were taking place independently of the same activities being conducted legally, i.e with the army's authorisation, and Cllr Neville confirmed he had been advised that they were. Subject to changes to wording in places, it was agreed that the amended draft should be sent. Proposed: Cllr Carryer Seconded: Cllr Blaber |
| 06/87 Report on meeting held by HCC on 4th September 2006 concerning Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework |
Cllr Neville explained that HCC has a permanent plan on Minerals and Waste Development which every so often it seeks to update. At the moment HCC is in consultation about updating the plan and as a result he had attended a meeting on 4th September where various sites in the local area were being considered for possible future development. He stressed that the fact a site was on the list of areas being considered by no means meant it was inevitable that it would be developed. He said that the site which most concerned him was that of the large field on the right hand side of the Oakhanger Road at Bakers Corner, just opposite the current workings. There would be no potential for landfill at the end of excavation and so a lake would be created as a result. At the meeting, issues had been raised in relation to this site about traffic, visual impact, potential for flooding and the fact that there would then be four sandpits within half a mile of each other. In reply to a question from James Gregory, a local resident, Cllr Neville said that he felt the site was more likely to be developed than some of the others because it would not disturb housing so much and because it could easily be linked up to facilities at the existing nearby sites. Cllr Neville explained that it was possible for individuals to respond as part of the consultation process as well. Various suggestions were made to Mr Gregory about issues that could be raised including the possibility of it affecting a new bore hole that might be being built at Binswood; the need to apply for a tree preservation order on the very old oak tree in the centre of the field (which again could be done by an individual), the fact that the site lay within the proposed South Downs National Park and close to the SSSI at Shortheath Common and listed buildings. Mr Gregory asked whether there was anything known about the potential use of such a lake at the end of excavation should the site be developed. Cllr Neville replied that, in the event of development, every effort would be made to put conditions in place to secure the site for a nature reserve, which was already the case for the existing site across the road. |
| 06/88 To respond to EHDC consultation on introduction of dog control orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 |
Dave Griffiths of the Animal Welfare section of the Environment Department at EHDC addressed the meeting to explain the new legislation permitting the introduction of Dog Control Orders. He explained that EHDC made a blanket order covering all of East Hampshire in 1997 under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 which means you must clear up after your dog in any public access area. No new orders may be made under this Act although existing orders may remain in place. This is also true of byelaws made by Parish Councils eg. banning dogs from areas such as playgrounds. If new orders are required, they must be Dog Control Orders made under the new legislation. There are five types of DCO that may be made concerning removal of dog faeces, dogs on leads, dogs on leads by direction, exclusion of dogs from land and the maximum number of dogs that can be walked at any one time on land. In relation to the last type, he stressed that a blanket order is not possible and a particular area of land to which it applies has to be designated. Both EHDC and Parish Councils could make DCOs. One advantage of DCOs is that the fixed penalty of £50 for dog fouling under the DFOLA can be increased and it is a legal offence not to give a name and address to an authorised person if directed to do so (which is not the case with the DFOLA). However, the practical difficulties of ensuring the correct details had been given, actually catching the person breaking an order in the first place meant that dog control orders should certainly not be viewed as a potential source of income for the village. It should be understood that there would be legal requirements of drafting and printing copies of orders, advertising them, purchasing and fitting signage, enforcement costs including taking any court cases, and all of these costs would have to be met by the authority making the order. He explained that EHDC felt that the existing system worked and felt there was a potential for increased confusion, different areas with different rules, and a lack of resources to finance the introduction of and properly enforce new dog control orders. For this reason it had decided to consult with the Parish Councils to ascertain their views. In reply to various questions, he explained that Kingsley Common was exempt under the DFOLA but could be included under a DCO although East Hants had never attempted to enforce anywhere on MOD land. He confirmed that there was currently no limit to the number of dogs that might be walked by one person on the Common. He also said that where dogs strayed onto private land including gardens, this was a matter of civil law where the current case law suggested that there was an onus on the landowner to fence in their property. Cllr Neville asked him whether he felt dog poo bins worked. Mr Griffiths said he felt that a limited number were helpful. If the Parish Council wanted to install these, they would have to pay a small cost to EHDC for regular emptying as well as fund the cost of purchase and installation. It would be necessary to negotiate with the MOD to install them on the Common and that siting of them could be discussed with Brian Turner, the EHDC Streetcare Manager. Peter Skemp commented that he felt the Common should be covered by a DCO on dog fouling. He also said that he had written a letter to Cllr Neville about problems with dogs on the Common and he wanted to know how this matter had become one of public debate in the Cricketers and on the Blog. Cllr Neville said he had no idea as he very rarely went to the Cricketers and he did not use the Blog, and that the purpose of the item on the agenda was to discuss Dog Control Orders and he would not get involved in neighbourly disputes.
|
| 06/89 To consider quotations received in respect of tree pruning on Upper Green |
| The
Chairman advised that he had met with three tree surgeons on site and
all had quoted for the deadwooding of 25 oak trees. There was a substantial
difference between the amounts quoted and it was unanimously agreed to
accept the quotation of £700 given by Andrew Murray, on the grounds
that he was a local person with the cheapest estimate. Proposed: Cllr Herbert Seconded: Cllr Carryer |
| 06/90 To consider quotations received from Playsafe in respect of repairs to playground and annual maintenance contract |
It
was agreed that the amounts itemised in the quotation for repairs totalling
£430 should be accepted. The quotation
of £220 for an annual maintenance contract was discussed. Cllr
Seeckts felt it would simply lead to more work being quoted for, but
Cllr Herbert felt it was important to have a regular servicing agreement
on playground equipment. Cllr Blaber said he preferred that maintenance
work was done independently. Cllr Neville suggested that it should be
tried for one year and this was agreed: |
| 06/91 Trafiic: Update on campaign for 30 MPH limit |
| The Chairman reported that the request for a 30 mph limit had now been turned down again, due to the police refusing to support a traffic regulation order to achieve it. This followed the speed survey in July which showed that the traffic speed was too high for the police to support a change, as it would not be self-enforcing. In reply to a question from Cllr Seeckts, he said that HCC had been asked to supply the data from the speed survey in time for this meeting, but had not done so. Each Councillor was then asked to give their views on whether to continue fighting for this reduction in the speed limit. It was unanimously felt that the campaign should continue. Accordingly, the first action would be to press HCC for the speed survey data and to approach Dockenfield PC about the way in which they had achieved a reduction to 30 mph, which had been mentioned at the last Annual Parish Meeting. |
| 06/92 Update of Parish Council website |
| Cllr Neville reported that the Parish Council website had now been updated and a system was in place that would cost an estimated £15 to £20 per month to keep it updated immediately the agenda and minutes were available for publication. He asked Cllr Seeckts to pass on the Council’s thanks to Virginia Seeckts for all the help she had provided in the past in keeping the website going. |
| 06/93 Planning Matters: responses to applications |
| F20835/005/FUL/LL
STANNARDS VIEW, GROOMS FARM LANE, FRITH END F20264/005/FUL/TW
CONVERSION OF STABLE BUILDING TO DWELLING, LAND NORTH OF KINGSLEY SPRINGS,
THE STRAITS, KINGSLEY F22163/007/TPO/SG
FELL OR PRUNE ONE BEECH TREE, OCKHAM HALL GROUNDS, KINGSLEY F20136/037/FUL/LL
INSTALLATION OF CAR WASH, SLEAFORD SERVICE STATION, KINGSLEY F21066/019/OUT/DLS
OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR TWO DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, BAKERS
FARM, OAKHANGER ROAD, KINGSLEY Further
to F21066/019, Cllr Neville explained that the Parish Council had initially
been unaware of the wording contained in the application submitted in
2004 and that this particular decision was not listed on the EHDC website.
He felt that the Planning Dept at EHDC should do more to advise Parish
Councils where there was a past history and Cllr Womack advised him
to send a letter to the Head of Planning on this matter. |
| 06/94 Report from District Councillor |
| Cllr W. Womack had no report to make following recent illness. |
| 06/95 Report from Chairman |
| Cllr Neville reported that the next meeting of the Regulatory Committee at which the Grundons application would be considered was at Winchester on 18th October 2006. Cllr Herbert asked that Cllr Neville should be thanked for all his work on this matter and that this should be minuted. |
| 06/96 Reports from Councillors |
| Cllr
Carryer reported that she had been asked to bring up the issue of problems
caused by dogs on the Common but that this matter had been fully dealt
with earlier in the meeting. She also asked if Hampshire Highways could
be asked to replace the old wooden signpost for St Nicholas that used
to point up the C70. The Chairman asked the Clerk to investigate this
and to put this on a future agenda should a cost be involved. Cllr Blaber voiced his concerns about the state of the road surface along the B3004 between Kingsley and East Worldham. Clllr Neville explained that the Parish Council had been notified earlier in the week that there was to be temporary speed limit of 40 mph introduced until the road surface was prepared. Cllr Seeckts asked if the state of the footpath between Kingsley Cross Country and Tarmac had been reported and the Clerk confirmed it had. Cllr Seeckts agreed to discuss with the Tarmac manager what could be done about the stretch round from the Tarmac entrance to the C70 which is only partially made into a footpath at present. At Cllr Seeckts request, It was agreed to record in the minutes that the Jalsa Convention was extremely well run with minimum disruption to our village and we were surprised and pleased that the traffic moved through the village so quickly. We understand there were traffic problems in Surrey, especially around Farnham. Cllr Herbert reported that she had asked for the footpath known as Tank Alley to be cleared a month ago but it was still impassable. Cllr Carryer had previously reported this to the owner and agreed to call him again. Cllr Herbert advised that there was flytipping on the bridleway along the old road leading to New Inn which she would report. She also planned to approach the footpaths officer to ask for the bridleway sign opposite Inverallen to be replaced. Finally she reported that she had been in contact with the arboricultural officer to ask him to inspect the dead elms along the main road to see whether they should now be taken down. |
| 06/97 Payments to be made |
|
| 06/98 Date of next meeting |
| The
next full Council meeting will be held on Thursday 26th October 2006 at
8.00pm in the Kingsley Centre. There being no further business the Meeting closed at 10.05pm |