Source: http://hiltonparishcouncil.org.uk/wp/?p=1411
Timestamp: 2019-02-21 13:04:58
Document Index: 800862692

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2']

Annual Parish Meeting Minutes, March 2017 « Hilton Parish Council
Minute Number 002/2017 – To receive apologies for absence
Cllr Hall due to illness
Minute Number 003/2017 – Declaration of Members’ Interests.
Minute Number 004/2017 – Open meeting for residents – On the Proposed Development on land at Derby Road Hilton
Members of the public raised the following matter:
A resident who lived on Cherry Tree Close and was talking ob behalf of himself and another resident, gave a small presentation on the following:
It’s not about questioning the development, it’s about questioning if further development is needed in Hilton.
He owned land near the proposed development.
He was not aware of the proposed development until he received the leaflet from the Harwoth Group. He called Cllr Plenderleith who had been very helpful in answering his queries.
He explained that finding out other information had been very difficult but he had discovered the Adopted Local Plan part 1 and the Pre-submission Local Plan part 2
The Local Plan part 2 highlights small developments under 100 houses, which this proposed development came under.
Planning Policy H23 lists the local villages and talks about possible local housing allocations of less than 100 properties. It states that they are trying to find 600 houses from this list of possible areas up to 2020. The total in the plan comes to 701 houses, so not all the areas listed will be built upon, which may put villages in competition with each other.
He had found a leaflet on line as part of the consultation for part 1 of the Local Plan, which was address to “Dear Resident” from SDDC, as a resident living next door to the proposed development he had never seen this. Nobody else at the meeting had seen the letter either. There was also a further letter to “Dear Resident” as part of the part 2 consultation for the Local Plan but again the residents had not seen this.
In the draft Local Plan it shows the settlement boundaries, within which they will fill in or build on.
Come June 2016 the boundary for Derby Road had been changed within the Local Plan to include the land of this proposed development.
It was reported that conversations between the Land Owners, the Agents and Harworth Estates has been ongoing for over a year. It was also thought that discussions had also been held with SDDC.
He explained that he had read on line that the Local Plan part 2 was due for adoption in May 2017. Cllr Plenderleith replied that there was a public consultation on the plans in autumn of last year. The Local Plan part 2 pre-submission was now ready for the Inspector to look through all the plans next month. A resident asked Cllr Plenderleith if the Inspector visited all the sites prior to approving the plan. Cllr Plenderleith replied that this was not the case as the consultation had been completed and this was now at pre-submission stage. A resident asked how could they live next to the proposed development site and know nothing about this in advance. Cllr Plenderleith replied that SDDC have a consultation process in place, all information is on the SDDC Website, it can be viewed on appointment at the SDDC offices, the Parish Council were consulted, it was advertised in the local press, on social media and meeting were held for residents to attend at Hilton Village Hall.
A resident quoted Hommer Simpson “the reason we have elected officials, is so that we don’t have to think all the time. However the resident had found themselves doing a lot of thinking and research.
It was reported that the SDDC website was not user friendly and it was difficult to find the required information.
It was reported that the settlement boundary needed to be reinstated back to where it was originally before it was changed in May to where it is now. Cllr Plenderleith replied that this would not be possible as there would be no further consultation on the Local Plan part 2 as it was submitted to the inspector in January. A resident replied that in effect then, this was a done deal. Cllr Plenderleith replied that this was not the case and members of the public could ask to speak to the inspector, on appointment at the Town Hall in Swadlincote to make representation on 26th, 27th and 28th April 2017. These meetings would be held during the day.
It was reported that Hilton had been subjected to overdevelopment, Hilton had grown by 120% up to 2001, but this did not take into account what’s happened after that date.
The national Planning Policy Framework states that the need should be objectively assessed, so does Hilton need more development.
For the non-strategic developments highlighted in the Local Plan, it is not anticipated that any other sites will be required to provide significant infrastructure. In Hilton we already know that the School and Doctors Surgery are struggling. The School that St Modwen promised has now been delayed. One could rightly assume that people that will live in this new development will require School and Doctors.
The plan does not mention the drains and drainage. The proposed development will be on land which already floods. A resident show pictures of this land flooded and pictures of flooding in their garden
There is no mention in the leaflet on hedgerows and trees yet the area is used by a lot of wildlife. It is almost an extension to the wildlife reserve, with at least 9 species of birds, birds don’t know or understand boundaries. In the leaflet they have photo shopped out the hedges.
A question was asked as to where the public right of way goes to on identified on the leaflet.
On the leaflet the contours of the land are not clear but there were concerns from residents of surround properties that they would be overlooked and overshadowed if the development was given the go ahead.
A resident living in the vicinity of the proposed development reported that they had put in a planning application to add another floor but this was refused on the grounds of overshadowing and not within keeping.
It was reported that the local residents under paragraph 76 could propose that the proposed development land be designated as Local Green Space rather than for a housing development. This would need to be a local community decision to start the process and would require the local community to support this. This then would protect the land better than it is now.
Farm land had been identified in the Local Pan as development land, however in some cases the farmers have no intention of selling the land for development.
There were concerns over the John Port School and how they would cope with the intake of more children. It was not know at this stage if John Port School had the provision for more children.
It was reported that there was no infrastructure in the village and the planning department needed to sort this out before allowing further housing development to go ahead. The Chair replied that the lack of infrastructure was the biggest concern for the Parish Council.
Cllr Hudson reported that initially she joined the Parish Council in relation to planning and the ridiculous infilling of land. Over past months she had learned a lot about planning the procedures and processes. Infrastructure needed to be seriously considered.
When you move to a village you expect your child to be able to go to the local School, however people can chose what school their children goes to. If there are surrounding Schools are they full to capacity, if not, then children may be sent there instead. This is the same principal for the Doctors.
Cllr Hudson urged everyone to go onto the SDDC website and look at the Planning Inspectors Notice, in relation to the planning development that had now been overturned on appeal, adjacent to the Mandarin Chinese Restaurant. If people and the Parish Council are to put in an objection to the proposed development on Derby Road we need to be canny and explain that the School and Doctors are full to capacity. We need to get the School and Doctors to admit this. She then explained that the planning department at SDDC when determining a planning application, would only look at certain planning matters as per the handout given to everyone at the meeting (Planning Aid England – Communities and Local Government).
If we are unsuccessful and the development is given approval the residents and the Parish Council need to be able to shape what is actually built for example, we don’t agree to 40 houses due to density but will accept 10.
A resident said that they had been informed that SDDC would support this application in principal, Harworth Estates are also 99.9% confident they will obtain the required planning permission. It was suggested that if SDDC were to refuse the application the planning inspector would overturn it anyway. This is why there was a suggestion to re-designate the area as Open Green Space, not to get it stopped but to get an alternative use for the land.
Access past the children’s nursery was very poor and would be dangerous.
There were already lots of cars using Derby Road and the proposed development would only impound this problem.
There was a big issue with speeding vehicles on Derby Road. The Chair said that he would take this issue back to the next Safer Neighbourhood meeting along with the Police. The Police said that they could also do speed checks in this area.
The Parish Council members were asked if the Parish Council had a Village Plan like other villages. The Clerk replied that the Parish Council produced a Village Plan in 2004, all items listed on that plan had been completed apart from the installation of an outdoor bowling green. The Clerk explained that the Parish Council were in the process of looking at updating the Village Plan but this would cost between £10,000.00 and £15,000.00 to complete. It was reported that residents should attend Parish Council Meetings to help develop the plan going forward.
The issue of the tarmacking of the Parish Council car park was raised and the comment was made that this should be put on hold and the money diverted to update the Village Plan. The Chair replied that the Tarmacking of the car park was a condition of the planning application when the Scout Hut was completed. This has been in the plan for many years. Cllr Brundish replied that this item was not for this meeting and invited the resident to attend the Parish Council Meeting to discuss this further.
Cllr Brundish reported that there were more than 30 residents in attendance at the meeting tonight but at normal monthly Parish Council Meeting there are only a few members of the public in attendance or none at all like the last Parish Council Meeting. The really interesting point of 120% increase in development since 2001 means that there are a lot of residents in the village of Hilton, we all need to work together to hold SDDC to account and this is better done by sheer numbers. Why do you think they don’t build in Melbourne, because they have a solid group of people working together. Cllr Patten replied that Melbourne do have a lot of proposed development planned there too.
A member of the public asked if a petition would be the way to go. Cllr Hudson replied that petitions against planning developments do not hold much weight. What we need to do is get as many concerns and proper planning objections down as possible, then we need to find out what to do next.
The Clerk explained that the first process to follow would be for residents to make use of the project website as shown on the leaflet, by sending through to them any comments, queries or concerns. She explained that as of yet there was not a live planning application for this proposed development on the SDDC website, however once this does become a live planning application, residents needed to do exactly the same and send their comments queries and concerns directly to SDDC.
Cllr Julie Patter explained that they were proactive to obtaining 106 money against larger developments. She explained that 106 money was money negotiated by SDDC with the developer to help the local community, this money was for health, highways and education and was normally used for capital costs. A resident said that it sounded great that the developers promise all this money. However to be clear the 106 money does not have to be spent in Hilton and this is down to SDDC to decide where the money will be spent once received for example, past 106 money was spent on the leisure centre in Etwall in 2006. Cllr Hudson replied that the wording of the 106 is really important and it was down to the Officers and Councillors to agree how this is spent. Cllr Plenderleith reported that one development in Hilton with 106 money attached stipulated that any 106 money must be spent in Hilton and it was every penny.
It was suggested that for H&S reasons every development should have 2 entrances, this was in case there was a fire at the entrance A resident replied that Bren Way only had one entrance. The Chair replied that this would be something for the planners to decide when determining the planning application.
It was asked why the new school had been delayed, was this still going ahead. Cllr Patten reported that the second school would be built and this was set in stone. The Parish Council were asked to help force the building of the School this year. Cllr Patten said that she had requested an update as to where we are with the new School, she would update the Parish Council at their meeting next week on this matter.
A resident reported that their biggest concern on Derby Road was the traffic, the speed limit goes from 30 to 40, however car go past in the evening doing at least 70 to 80mph. It had been reported in the past that the Parish Council would fight for a speed reduction in this area but more needs to be done like speed humps or chicanes.
A resident from Sutton Lane explained that he struggled to get a mortgage as his property was built on floodplain. His garden completely floods when it rains as the drains cannot even take the water when it’s not raining heavy, this all goes down his path and into his garden.
A resident reported that every 3 weeks or so, he has lorries hitting the side of his house as Sutton Lane was not built for such large vehicles. The Police replied that matter like this or speeding vehicles need to be reported to the Police. If the Police are not informed, they are not aware of the problems. It was also reported that lorry drivers had stopped and asked residents to move their car so that they can get through, this happens quite oftern.
A resident reported that when they purchased their house, no developments were raised, now there is going to be a large development overlooking them.
The Ward Members were asked if residents had missed the boat to get the village boundary moved back to where it was originally. Cllr Plenderleith replied yes she thought so but she would check with SDDC and then update the resident.
A resident thanked the Parish Council for all that they do for the village, however she had not seen anything about this in the Hilton and Dove Life Directory. Cllr Billings replied that he had put something in the Dove Life Directory in December.
A resident mentioned the proposed crossing for the development. He explained that this seemed to be in the wrong place, the crossing needs to be where for example a group of children from the nursery could cross.
A resident said that they use to live on Welland Road but they moved as the parking was atrocious due to the narrow roads. From the plan for the proposed development it looked like these roads would be narrow and the driveways would be small with no visitor parking.
A resident said that we need to remember that Hilton was a gravel pit and the water table is very high which will only get worse with more development.
The issue of funding with the Hilton Primary School was raised and the meeting held last week, this was in relation to not being able to fund PE kits and having to let staff go, the School were having a complete funding crisis. The Parish Council were asked why they were not helping the School with Funding. The Clerk explained that the Parish Council cannot give donations or grants to another Local Authority. The Clerk explained that the Parish Council could only give grants and donations to non-profit organisations and registered charities within the village under section 137. The Clerk was asked if the PTFA could apply for a grant. The Clerk explained that if they were a registered charity and fitted the criteria, then they could apply for funding, however Parish Council grants would not be available again until December 2016 to January 2018. Cllr Brundish replied that it was ridiculous that the School did not have the correct PE kit. This is the schools fault as they can obtain kit for free for example, by asking McDonalds to sponsor it, or by using the Sainsbury’s vouchers. He explained that when the School do receive new kit they do not look after it properly. He explained that the School receives about £10,000.00 a year to purchase this kind of equipment. The fact that they do not have the correct PE kit is the fault of the school, they need to do this better. He explained that the Head of PE needs to ask the correct people and they will get free kits. A resident replied that PE kits were just one example, the School was struggling and redundancies were being made.
What’s next/Plan of Action:
Residents to comment directly to the developer either in writing as per the address on the leaflet sent by Harworth Estates, or by using their project website also listed on the leaflet.
When the planning application is live on the SDDC website residents to do exactly the same, comment to the application with any comments, queries or concerns.
We all need to look at influencing what could possibly go there in terms of the amount of development, the density of the properties etc.
Be mindful to only object on proper planning grounds as these are the only matters that SDDC will consider when determining the application.
Look at if the settlement boundary can be put back to its original state prior to May.
Try and make sure that the need that no more housing in Hilton is required.
The Clerk to add links to the Parish Council Facebook page in relation to the Adopted Local Plan part 1, the Pre-submission of the Local Plan part 2, the SDDC planning portal and the inspectors notice in relation to the development adjacent to the Mandarin Chinese Restaurant.
There needs to be 2 strand, one looking at what should go on the proposed development and another to look at what and how the land could be designated for alternative use for example as Local Green Space.
Ask for a soil quality survey to be completed on the land, if the land is contaminated it may not get approval anyway.
Parish Council to look at updating the Village Plan as soon as possible.
Minute Number 004/2017 – Close of meeting
Resolved: The Meeting was closed at 8.20pm
Posted in Minutes.Tagged Annual, Minutes, Parish.