Living in Freshford‎ > ‎Parish Council‎ > ‎Council Meetings‎ > ‎Agendas‎ > ‎

PC Meeting Agenda 12th December 2016

posted 6 Dec 2016, 05:32 by Parish Council Communications

FRESHFORD PARISH COUNCIL

NOTICE OF MEETING (Local Government Act 1972)

YOU ARE INVITED TO the ORDINARY MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL IN FRESHFORD VILLAGE HALL ON

MONDAY 12th December 2016 AT 7.00PM

AGENDA


 

1.     Apologies for Absence

2.     Declarations of Interest and Requests for Dispensations - Members are reminded of their obligation to declare any interest they may have on any Agenda item to be discussed.

3.     Open Forum - an opportunity for residents to address the Parish Council.

4.     Minutes of Parish Council Meeting held on the 14th November 2016 (approval & matters arising)

5.     Finance and personnel

·  Payments of invoices and notice of receipts

6.     Correspondence Received

7.     Planning Applications and Decisions

16/0557/FUL – 6-7 Upper Mount Pleasant, Erection of single side extension

16/05451/FUL – The Cottage, Pipehouse Lane, Erection of extension to form annexe and conversion of garage. (Resubmission of 16/04591/FUL)

Rose & Crown – Change of Use planning application

       8. Groundsman pay review

9. Precept 2017/18 Discussion

       10. PC Assets

      11. VPA update (PK/NS)

      12. Parish Charter update (NS)

      13. Upcoming external meetings.

14. Updates to include:

·       Traffic & Transport (NS)

·       Neighbourhood planning projects update (AO)

·       Roads and verges

-  Street sweeper scheme update (JH)

·       Trees & Footpaths (JH)

·       Street Lighting

·       Facilities & Funding (JA)

·       Communications (AO)

·       Bulletin (PK)

 15.  Dates for 2017 PC Meetings

16. Exchange of information

CLERK – Ingrid Maher Roberts

36 Trowbridge Road

Bradford on Avon

BA15 1EP

Tel: 01225 863359

ingrid.maherroberts@gmail.com

       Date of Next Meeting:  8th January 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freshford Parish Council

Chairman’s Report – Andrew Orme

12th December 2016

 

Street lighting – costs of energy supply and maintenance

I wondered why some (most?) residents of B&NES have the benefit of street lighting paid for out of Council Tax, whereas Freshford residents, who of course pay Council Tax in the normal way, have to pay extra through the Parish Precept to cover the cost of our street lighting. This is manifestly unfair.

 

We have the benefit of street lighting that reflects to a considerable extent the heritage of our village. I did not want to change this arrangement, which works well under Ingrid’s management, but had hoped we might get a financial contribution from B&NES in recognition of the money they save by not providing this service in Freshford.

 

Cllr Neil Butters helped to raise the matter with Cllr Charles Gerrish, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency. Cllr Gerrish replied, somewhat guardedly:

“Without any commitment I recall a similar conversation some years ago re Peasdown where the position is worse i.e. some old lights are parish whilst new ones are B&NES. Fundamentally the discussion at that time was that if Peasdown had been prepared to bring the old lights up to standard B&NES would consider adopting them – Peasdown (although they had the funds) declined to do so. Theoretically the conversation should be with Street lighting team – the initial issue would be the current condition of the lights and are they in an area that B&NES would normally consider providing lighting for?”

 

Our street lights are, within the constraints of our budget, in reasonable condition (with the exception of the five lamps along the footpath opposite the lower part of the cemetery which are supposed to be maintained by B&NES). My concern, should B&NES take over the management, would be that replacement lights would be ‘standard issue’ and there would be no concessions to the context or local opinion in Freshford. I intend to pursue the matter with the Street Lighting Team to see if we can get a financial contribution instead. Don’t hold your breath.

 

Precept planning

At our meeting in January we will need to approve our budget for 2017/18 so, at our meeting on 12th December, we will have a preliminary discussion.

 

Many of the lines on the budget more or less write themselves. These are jobs we have to do and costs we have to incur so we just need to show expected costs for next year, looking as always for areas where savings may be made.

 

One thing we do have some control over and which we need to consider is the amount we feel should be spent on asset maintenance. Since Martin took over responsibility for FPC’s assets, he has done sterling work on detailing the requirements and priorities. This work has not been properly addressed for some time and there is something of a backlog. We can see how much budget might be available after we have covered our ongoing needs. If we feel we want to do more, we need to look at either raising the precept or dipping into reserves - or a combination of both. This is the discussion we will have.

 

Agenda Item 7 – Planning – Roger Paine

Planning Application 16/05557/FUL      6-7 Upper Mount Pleasant

The application provides for a single storey extension to the north east end of the existing  property,  which itself is the end cottage in a row of seven  former smaller cottages.  Part of this row was formerly the Cottage Hospital.

The application is very brief and few documents or details are provided.    A simple analysis of the plans would indicate that the proposed ground floor extension would not exceed the Council’s guideline that such extensions should not produce a volume increase greater than about one third.   This analysis is only very approximate based on floor area.

Such an extension would change the overall style of the row of cottages, but the building would only be seen by a limited number of properties in the vicinity.

The Council would want to ensure that the style and materials of this extension are in keeping with the location and the existing row of buildings, in accord with the Villages Design Statement.     The Council would not expect the extension to exceed the volume increase guideline.

 

The Cottage Pipehouse Lane – Extension to Garage  16/05451/FUL

An application for a garage extension to The Cottage (16/04591/FUL) was considered by the Council at its October 2016  meeting,  and comments submitted;  that application was withdrawn. This new application is for a considerably smaller extension to the garage.

The garage is attached to The Cottage and will be enlarged  on its west side at ground level.      This will provide a bedroom and bathroom.   Internal stairs will lead to the new first floor containing a sitting room and kitchen.   The garden and parking areas outside will be changed.

It is stated in the application that the previous proposals would have involved build of about 135 sq.m.  This application involves about 10 sq.m.

The Council’s comments in October included the requirement to adhere to the Villages Design Statement, access by contractors, and the avoidance of creating any kind of precedent.  These same comments apply in this case.   In October concern was expressed about the size of the extension in terms of the Council’s guideline; whilst detailed figures were not given it appeared that the guideline of about   one –third would be exceeded. In this new case the extension is small, and issues of overlooking would be minimal.

The Council will recall that an original application to build a new detached house  (April 2016)  in the garden of The Cottage was supported by the Council, but opposed by B&NES. This is now subject to a formal Appeal with the Planning Inspector.

 

 

Agenda Item 10 – PC Assets – Martin Walker

Memorial Benches

Margaret Dodge proposal for the Alan Dodge bench is ongoing.

Street sign Clutter

Photographic record and survey has been completed.  MW has met with Martin Laker of BANES in Freshford.  Street sign details, location, type and photograph have been plotted as a separate layer on Parish Online.  Proposed de-cluttering works now need to be considered as part of the NP Gateway works

War Memorial.

Martin Walker to meet with British Legion to discuss further work all to be costed and approved. Meeting date awaited.

Morris’s Lion

The Clerk, Andrew Orme and Martin Walker have met at the Village Hall to research past Parish Council records relating to moving of Morris’s Lion to Manor Barn. MW has since met with Lisa and Nick Derbyshire to consider what work is required with responsibilities for costs. To be agreed.

Street Lighting.

MW to update Parish Online locations of Street Lighting including the new Cemetery footpath lighting, the footpath lights down from the Village Hall and others in Church Hill, Station Road and adjacent the School.

Parish Online Mapping

MW will attend the BANES presentation on Parish Online mapping on Tuesday evening 6th December.

Other Assets generally.

Comments as previous November 2016 report

Further work for 2017 should be considered, discussed and agreed.

 

 

Agenda Item 11 – VPA Update

Re: West of England Joint Transport Study: Transport Vision

 

            This letter is the response of the Valley Parishes Alliance to the Consultation on the above.

 

1          Summary

 

1.1           The Valley Parishes Alliance objects strongly to three aspects of the JTS, viz.

a)     The proposal to build a road to link the A36 with the A46;

b)     The proposal to build a Park & Ride carpark in the Bathampton Meadows; and

c)     The proposal to build a Freight Consolidation Centre on Bathampton Meadows.

 

1.2           We have specific objections to each of the sub-projects above (more on this below) but an overriding objection to all three relates to the environmental impact that the projects would have on the Avon valley and Bathampton Meadows.

 

1.3           With regard to a link road, our objections are based on the evidence that a link road will not fulfil the objectives of materially reducing congestion and pollution in the centre of Bath. Moreover, although a specific routing has not yet been proposed, it is clear that both the A36 and A46 are distinctly unsuitable to carry the inevitable increase in traffic generally and HGVs in particular, that would result.

 

1.4           There is no evidence to suggest that a Park and Ride facility centred on Bathampton Meadows will have any effect at all on the London Road traffic. It is more likely to be an under-utilised white elephant.

 

1.5           If a Freight Consolidation Centre (FCC) were constructed on the Bathampton Meadows, it would serve as a magnet for HGVs, and would result in spawning many more delivery vehicles onto the congested London Road approach to the City. Its out-of-hours operations would provide an unacceptable amount of noise and light pollution to this otherwise tranquil pastoral environment.

 

1.6           Any one of these projects would likely have an NPV which could never justify the cost of construction and the spoiling of the natural environment forever.

 

1.7           The above requires rigorous, analytical, evidence-based debate, and not comments which ignore detailed discussion and conclude that it is simply ‘common sense’.

2.         Environmental concerns

 

1   

2   

2.1  The Avon valley and the Bathampton Meadows lie in the setting of the World Heritage City. The responsibility to protect the WHS landscape setting is set out in international, national and local documents, e.g. 2008 City of Bath UNESCO report; 2009 Government Circular on WHS protection; 2009 B&NES Public Realm and Movement Strategy; 2010 WHS Management Plan; 2013 WHS Setting Supplementary Planning Document.

2.2  Any link road would be in the Cotswold AONB and setting of the Bath World Heritage Site. A Public Enquiry concluded that a link road would have intolerable impacts on the landscape and be devastating to recreational amenity’.

2.3  Most of the Bathampton Meadows lie in Green Belt.

2.4  Most of the meadows lie in flood plain, clearly unsuitable for an FCC or car park. The small low-lying area which is not in flood plain is vital as an emergency area to provide for water storage at times of flooding. The entire area could not be considered without significant upstream flood defence measures.

2.5  It is understood that actual design detail for any of the projects is yet to be undertaken. However, any one of these projects would have an NPV which could never justify the cost of construction compared with the inevitable devastating impact to the natural environment.

2.6  All three projects will provide an unacceptable degree of noise (HGVs, car parking, or freight management activities). We consider that this increase cannot be justified in an open and natural AONB.

2.7  Light pollution will also be a major factor – particularly with the extended hours of operation required for an FCC.

2.8  It is purely a matter of balancing project effectiveness and cost, with the value of unspoilt pastoral countryside, forever lost as a local amenity in the gateway of the World Heritage City. Our view is that the link road and P&R projects will not be effective (will not satisfy their objectives), and that the FCC project is unjustified in its pervasiveness in the meadows location.  The Green Belt, AONB, and WHS setting are far more valuable and outweigh the devastating impacts of these three projects.

3.         Specific concerns regarding a link road

 

3.1  A36/46 Link Road schemes have been proposed many time in the past 30 years – but never considered viable.

3.2  Any link road would be in the Cotswold AONB and setting of the Bath World Heritage Site. A Public Enquiry concluded that a link road ‘would have intolerable impacts on the landscape and be devastating to recreational amenity’.

3.3  The A36 and A46 are geologically unstable, requiring frequent closures for maintenance, and are therefore unsuitable for increased HGV and other traffic that would result.

3.4  Bath traffic is predominantly local. Government figures show that only 1 in 20 cars represent through traffic. Minor congestion relief will therefore be temporary around Cleveland Bridge and London Road but nowhere else in Bath will benefit. B&NES agree with this conclusion.

3.5  Less than 5% of London Road traffic is HGVs, and only half of that figure is traffic flowing North-South. Replacing this traffic by smaller distribution vehicles (as will happen if an FCC is built) will clearly reduce any benefit which could otherwise have resulted.

3.6  New roads are invariably proven to induce more traffic unsuitable for the A36 and A46.

3.7  Bathampton is on the edge of an Air Quality Management Area with emissions just below EU safety limits and on a rising trajectory, while parts of London Road already exceed them. A link road attracting more East-West traffic (as shown in Government statistics) could only lead to further rises in emissions levels.

3.8  An A36/46 link road proposal fundamentally conflicts with B&NES Council’s own environmental policies.

3.9  A serious attempt to reduce HGV numbers in the city requires much greater support for Wiltshire’s plans to improve the A350 as a genuine north-south trunk route. If this were done, the HGVs would be attracted elsewhere rather than the A36 and A46.

3.10        Despite claims of possible benefits there is no proven economic case for a new link road.

4          Specific concerns regarding a Park & Ride facility

 

4.1           B&NES has recently conceded that a Park & Ride facility to the east of Bath will not reduce traffic congestion nor pollution on the London Road and Cleveland Bridge. This was done via reports to a Planning Inspector in autumn 2016. Since the stated aims of a public consultation in 2015 cannot be met, it is clearly not justifiable to spoil the Bathampton Meadows.

4.2           Park & Ride no longer has the support of DEFRA as a means of reducing congestion and pollution in towns. In 2009 DEFRA Local Air Quality Management Policy Guidance stated ‘Park & Ride is unlikely to affect town centre traffic levels, and may simply add to the amount of traffic entering the town’. In 2016 DEFRA completely removed all reference to Park & Ride in its tool kit that Local Authorities should consider in their efforts to reduce congestion and pollution. Instead they recommend behaviour change measures.

4.3           Research evidences that Park & Ride on the edge of cities adds to the number of kilometres travelled (on average 1 to 4 additional kilometres per P&R user). In addition, fewer than half of P&R users  would otherwise have driven into the city. The other users are new car trips or people transferring from public transport.

4.4           In November 2015 B&NES Council resolved that an integrated transport plan for the east of Bath was required to provide quality public transport proposals to serve the Wiltshire towns. There are no such plans within the JTS for east of Bath, although substantial expansion in other areas of the WOE  LEP is proposed.

4.5           The methodology and modelling tools used by B&NES in the past (for predicting take-up rates for P&R facilities) have been shown to be seriously flawed. Existing sites are, on average, only 41% full, and even at the busiest times average only 60% of capacity. Prior to proposing up to £10m on construction of a new P&R, B&NES must resist using untested assumptions and conduct a thorough patronage study.

4.6           It is now apparent that the only time Park & Ride is well used is during predictable seasonal events such as the Christmas Market which, according to B&NES' Cabinet Member for Transport, increases the take up of Park & Ride by 42%.  In 2015/16 Council parking data shows there were 19 days when average Park and Ride capacity exceeded 80%.  Of these, 17 coincided with the Christmas Market. The Council has this year secured over-spill Park & Ride for 140 cars at Lansdown North Playing fields for Saturdays during the Christmas Market. If this initiative were to be continued and expanded to manage future peak demand it would remove the need for further permanent Park and Ride Sites, and produce a capital saving of £10m.

4.7           It is critical that investment is focused on solutions that reduce congestion at peak times. Yet, at this time of day, Park and Ride sites are only 25% full. Bath’s Park & Ride sites are emptiest when congestion is at its worst, and there is no evidence that the behaviour of east of Bath commuters is any different to those who drive past Park & Ride from other destinations every day.

4.8           Since city centre traffic is already critically high, and is not predicted to reduce significantly with any of the schemes proposed for the east of Bath, it is important for B&NES (and, therefore, the WOE LEP) to concentrate on measures which may change behaviour. A Congestion charging scheme appears to have the greatest potential for such a modal shift. This would inevitably deter residents from driving into the city, and making greater use of existing bus services and other schemes (cycling, walking).

4.9           Concentration on the aspects of congestion which are most damaging (such as the daily school run, which is a significant factor during term times, and the disruption felt when unusual events take place such as Christmas Market and Bath Rugby days), could result in significant gains being made.

5          Specific concerns regarding a Freight Consolidation Centre (FCC)

 

5.1           We object strongly to indications that the proposed FCC is to be located on the Bathampton Meadows. Once the protection of the Meadows is properly understood (refer to Section 2 above), the further desecration of this site should be immediately rejected.

1.   

2.   

3.   

4.   

5.   

5.1.   

5.2.  We agree that an FCC in the vicinity could easily contribute towards the reduction of emissions affecting air quality (PM and NOx); CO2 emissions; traffic congestion; and conflict between road users. The inevitable attraction that an FCC would have for HGVs, however, would be a significant reason to not site it in the Bathampton Meadows.

5.3.  The FCC located in the northern fringe of Bristol was originally touted as a facility to serve Bristol and Bath. Its proximity to through rail is a major benefit for this site. We are unaware, however, of any attempt to promote its use for freight destined for Bath. Any plan to construct an FCC specifically for Bath, must surely only follow once an assessment of the potential for this site is made. To promote a plan without such an analysis will surely be criticised as ‘planning on the hoof’.

5.4.  A typical FCC operation includes long hours of operation, and significant noise and light pollution. These characteristics preclude its location in a low-lying bowl of natural meadowland. A proper evidence based study must be conducted to assess other locations which could be far more suitable and less pervasive on the life choices of hundreds of residents (For example, the hilltop site at Charmy Down (overlooked by no-one) or a site further north close to the junction of the A46 with the M4 motorway.

6.         West of England Consultation Questions

 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

The following are the VPA’s answers to the suggested questions posed by the WOE Consultation. The VPA has little knowledge of the Bristol, Weston-Super-Mare and northern fringe areas, and so offers no opinion.

Q1.      Is the level of ambition for the Transport Vision about right?

Answer. In the East of Bath the vision is entirely wrong. The link road and P&R schemes are now agreed to be of no benefit towards reducing congestion in the city, are of marginal benefit in doing so on the London Road and Cleveland bridge, and so cannot be justified. No work has been undertaken to indicate the FCC location is appropriate. The inclusion of these three projects cannot trump the need to protect the Green Belt, the AONB, and the Setting of the WHS.

Q2.      Do you think we are proposing the right mix of public transport (bus, rapid transit, park and ride and train)?

Answer.  As stated, a Park & Ride facility on Bathampton Meadows is not justified and should be removed from the plan. Further consideration should be given for a Congestion charging scheme in the centre of Bath.

Q3.      To what extent do you agree with the principle of diverting non-local traffic, including onto new roads, to accommodate public transport and cycling schemes?

Answer. In the East of Bath, there is no possible routing of a new road which would not have ‘intolerable impacts on the landscape and be devastating to recreational amenity’. A large question on the effectiveness of such a road persists.

Q4.      To what extent do you agree with the concept of a light rail (tram) solution on some rapid transit corridors?

            Answer. Subject to rigorous assessment of the need, likely effect, and value for money – this should be considered.

Q5.      To what extent do you agree with using financial incentives and financial demand management at a local level to raise funds to help pay for the transport vision? 

            We cannot answer this question without specific proposals.

Q6.      What kind of schemes would be most appropriate to deliver an upgrade to sustainable travel between the East Fringe and Bristol city centre?

            We have no opinion on this matter.

Q7.      Do you agree with the following elements of the package?

  • Marketing and education to change travel behaviour. 

Strongly agree

  • Area packages of improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and buses. 

Strongly agree

  • Strategic Cycle Routes - new or upgraded routes. 

Strongly agree

  • Park & Ride - new or expanded sites.

Strongly disagree in the east of Bath. Other sites - neutral

  • Bus network improvements.

Neutral

  • Expansion of the MetroBus network.

Agree

  • Light Rail routes.

Tend to agree – depends on the specifics.

  • Rail improvements – improvements to existing services and facilities.

Strongly Agree

  • New railway stations

Agree where feasible

  • Road improvements, including junction improvements & addressing bottlenecks

Strongly agree

  • New road connections

None are feasible in the east of Bath

  • Freight management including consolidation centres

Depending on location – strongly agree. Strongly disagree with a Bathampton Meadows location.

Q8.      Are there any other schemes you would like to see in the package?

            Serious consideration should be given to a Congestion Charging scheme in the city centre.

 

Agenda Item 12

Parish Charter.

The Parish Charter Working Group is now up and running. The first meeting took place on the 24th November (see draft Minutes in separate attachment) and a workshop is to be held on Tuesday 6th December at Keynsham. The Group is aiming to have the Charter completed and implemented by June 2017.

 

SSE. Customer Focus Group.

On behalf of the PC I attended this inaugural Customer Focus Group meeting at Melksham. It was an opportunity to ‘share views and experiences’ of SSE’s investment in the regional network with particular reference to:

  • Scenarios around Planned Supply Interruptions – what is important to you
  • How you contact us through our General Enquiries line and your expectations of that service
  • Resilience -  heading into the Winter period - for yourself, your community and your business

Two matters that might be worth following up through Parish Comms and/or The Bulletin.

1. Call 105. You can call this number free to report or get information about power cuts in your local area. You can also call 105 if you spot damage to electricity power lines and substations that could put you or someone else in danger.

2. Customers of SSE may join SSE’s Priority Services Register - eligibility extends to pensioners, those who are disabled or who have a chronic illness or who are recovering from major surgery, those with a young baby and those who are dependent on electricity for home medical care. Registration will give priority to these customers and additional practical help and support.

 

Agenda Item 14

Road Traffic Update.

High Street Junction – Re-instatement Defect. Received from Neil Martin, Streetworks Engineer, B&NES Council:

I went to this job a couple of weeks ago and emailed the Inspector but not you. I am happy with the anti-skid and in time it should dull down and match the rest. I first thought it was wearing off but it’s actually dirt. We will continue to monitor this site as it has a 2 year guarantee period.

 

I have acknowledged receipt while making it clear that we do not share his happiness for the work done. In the circumstances I suggest that the PC continues to monitor the site and report any further concerns as and when they arise.

 

Abbey Lane and car parking.

I have been in contact with the Football Club to see if there is any prospect of them permitting space to be used for off road car parking. They have yet to get back to me.

 

A36. Severance Survey

Keith Marsh on behalf of Skanska (and Highways England) has begun work on surveying the ‘hot spot’ sites along the A36 with a view to putting together a case for road improvements. Hugh Delap has provided Keith with detailed information particularly – but not exclusively - relating to Midford Lane and the Pipehouse junction and it may be that both he and I will carry out a site inspection in company with Keith Marsh at the appropriate time.

 

No 94 bus service

The most recent information came from Andy Strong of B&NES to Neil Butters:

Libra Travel has cancelled their registration for 94 so it’s in the public domain now. Our colleagues at Wiltshire have carried out some passenger surveys and have gone out to tender for a replacement service, including options for some reductions to reduce the operating costs. Neither we nor they would be able to bear an increase in the contract cost so if, as is likely, the lowest price for a like-for-like replacement is higher than the current price. I’ll update you as and when I have more info. 

The closing date for tendering is thought to be this week. Local users are naturally very concerned about the prospect of there being no bus service and need to know as a matter of urgency if a service will continue to operate. In some instances hospital appointments in the new year are being offered to resident users of the service who then are reluctant to go for the dates offered in case they cannot make the journey. We should press for matters to be resolved a.s.a.p.

West Of England Joint Transport Study. A36/46 link etc.

See: https://www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk/consult.ti/JTSTransportVision/consultationHome

By separate attachment is the draft paper prepared by Steve Mackerness on behalf of the VPA and which will provide a solid basis for informing further objection/comment submitted by VPA parish councils and individuals.

 

Agenda Item 14 – Facilities and Funding – John Adler

FLiSCA

The FLiSCA AGM was held.

Nothing of note to report.

Public Phone Box

Consultation response was provided to BANES to collate and respond to BT.

Bath Avon Forum

There was not a quorum for the meeting, therefore the AGM element has been postponed to January 11th. It will be held in Bath at The Kaposvar Room, Guildhall as it was decided that this was probably a better location for other PCs to reach.

There was a discussion about the structure of the Bath Avon Forum and why it is so poorly attended.

It was stated that this is the forum where PCs can hold BANES to account. A point I raised to Neil Butters was that whilst this may be the case, and that the presentations given by BANES are full of useful information, the detail comes thick and fast. The current structure does not allow for any thinking time, and sensible questioning comes from having given matters consideration. Therefore, questions come to mind essentially after the event – basically BANES councillors are prepared, but the audience isn’t especially as papers are not distributed in advance. I will raise this point more formally at the AGM.

The focus was on Transport and Finance.

Joint Spatial Plan and Joint Transport Study

Critical Issues:

  • National housing crisis
  • Maintaining economic prosperity
  • Unsustainable travel impacts climate change and poor health
  • Bath’s world class environment brings economic & community benefits

The JSP will:

  • be a statutory Development Plan Document for 2016-2036
  • A plan for the West of England
  • identify the number of new homes & employment land across the West of England
  • set out the spatial strategy for growth

The JTS will :

  • look at current & future challenges on our network
  • identify transport infrastructure needed to support development

JSP Strategic Priorities

  • Economic: To identify and meet the need for housing and accommodate the economic growth objectives of the LEP Strategic Economic Plan
  • Social: ensure all sections of our communities benefit
  • Environment: protect & enhance the sub-region’s diverse & high quality environment and ensuring resilience.
  • Infrastructure: new development is properly aligned with transport and other social infrastructure

A New Local Plan for B&NES

  • Combine Core Strategy & Placemaking Plan
  • Roll forward policies to 2036
  • Allocate JSP Strategic locations (new Green Belt boundary)
  • Set out site development & design principles
  • Designate and infrastructure proposals
  • Other housing/ employment land supply – allocate other sites
  • Approach to affordable housing policy
  • Universities and student accommodation
  • new policies warranted by new legislation, a time related target e.g. retail capacity, renewable energy targets

There was much discussion on aspects relating to Bristol, and Bath but little that impacts Freshford directly.

It was stated that the New Local Plan is being defined from a review of the Core Strategy along with the Placemaker Plans. The position of Neighbourhood Plans was not made clear. A further point to raise at the AGM.

The presentation got slightly confusing as sometimes Bristol was involved, and the impact on BANES was hidden – such as the housing shortage. The JSP needs to identify 39,000 dwellings, but BANES require 13,500 dwellings with no clear view on the shortfall. What are the pressures on Freshford? I highlight this point to underline the need to assimilate information prior to the meeting as this passed me by at the time.

The JSP addresses a wide area including Weston-Super-Mare, Bristol, Bath and environs. The BANES Core Strategy solely addresses BANES.

One highlight is that there is a national focus on a major road building programme. The A36/A46 link is on the agenda, and was highlighted:

  • The A350 route is on the agenda
  • BANES are working with Wiltshire on this, and with Highways for England

Therefore, a direct A36/A46 link at Bathampton is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

The new Local Plan is currently out for consultation, and is on exhibition at Bath One-Stop Shop from the 5th-19th December.

Financials

There was a presentation on BANES finances.

I was assured that we were to be provided with the slides – however these have not been forthcoming. I am chasing and will submit an updated report when received as it is important that these details are correct.

Basically, the bottom line seems to be that central government support for local councils is being seriously reduced over the coming years. Therefore it would seem to be beholden on BANES to increase new business area in the local community so as to increase their revenue from retaining new business rates.

There is a massive gap between funding and expenditure nationally – but BANES seem to be managing. Currently.

Public Phone Box

Consultation response was provided to BANES to collate and respond to BT.

 

Agenda Item 15 – 2017 PC Meeting Dates

Date of Annual General Meeting, Annual Parish Meeting and Parish Council Meeting for 2017 to be held at the Memorial Hall, Freshford at  7pm unless otherwise stated.

 

Monday, 9th January, Parish Council Meeting

Monday, 13th February, Parish Council Meeting

Monday, 13th March, Parish Council Meeting

Monday, 10th April, Parish Council Meeting

Tuesday, 25th April, Annual Parish Meeting, 8pm Main Hall

Monday, 8th May, Annual General Meeting

Monday, 12th June, Parish Council Meeting

Monday, 10th July, Parish Council Meeting

Monday – 14th August Provisional date

Monday, 11th September, Parish Council Meeting

Monday, 9th October, Parish Council Meeting

Monday, 13th November, Parish Council Meeting

Monday, 11th December, Parish Council Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments