MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF GEDDINGTON, NEWTON AND LITTLE OAKLEY by ELe90QyK

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 4

									  MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF GEDDINGTON, NEWTON AND
   LITTLE OAKLEY PARISH COUNCIL HELD ON SATURDAY 13TH
                       OCTOBER 2007

Members present:      Councillor V. Bellamy, Chairman
                      Councillors K. Barber, C. Buckseall, R. Fisk, M. Rowley and
                      D. Watson

                      Councillor Rowley arrived at 10.55 a.m.

Apologies:            Councillors G.Doherty, K. Drake-Lee, A. Gordon, E. Gordon,
                      J. Padwick and B. Smith

One member of the public attended the meeting.

This meeting was called to discuss proposed changes to the village boundaries of
Geddington, Newton and Little Oakley and to suggest matters that might require
funding when considering bids for precept.

Village Boundaries

Geddington
This discussion has followed a preliminary meeting with Boughton Estates who have
also put forward some ideas.

Councillor Bellamy presented maps of the villages showing the existing boundaries.

Councillor Watson reminded the Parish Council that Geddington has already seen the
development of 46 properties in the village since 2003 out of a suggested 49
requirement figure. It has been identified that there should be 10 units of affordable
housing in the village. Boughton Estates have offered to incorporate these into their
proposed new development at land off Bright Trees Road. Planning permission for
this site has not yet been submitted by Boughton Estates.

Councillor Watson questioned what was meant by ‘affordable’ housing which would
appear to encompass property which has stepped ownership, rather than a low price
market price. This could be managed by Boughton Estates as the landlords or by a
Housing Association. However, it was not felt that apartments should be encouraged
as other local areas had had trouble finding residents for these.

The argument for development on this site would include the need to sustain the
school and the need for affordable housing, but taking into consideration the needs of
the village and adequate infrastructure particularly in relation to drainage water and
sewage.

If the development was sizeable then there may be Section 106 funding to support this
which could bring benefits to the village.

                                             Page 1 (Special meeting 13.10.07)
Councillor Bellamy suggested that the Parish Council need to consider whether
suggested new boundaries would be sustainable to include the number of people who
need to come into the village and also all the other services, as highlighted above:
drainage water and sewage.

Councillor Watson felt that the most sensible option would be for the piece of land
from the edge of Bright Trees Road up to Stamford Road to be developed as long as
the infrastructure was in place to sustain the development. It was highlighted that
Government guidelines may also allow for more houses to be developed on this site.

Councillor Barber also felt that this area was the natural area for development in the
village.

There was a suggestion that the smaller piece of land adjacent to Stamford Road could
be developed, preserving a green wedge between that area and Bright Trees Road
with access on to the main road. Councillor Watson argued that a smaller sized
development may not attract the benefits of Section 106 in relation to improved
infrastructure.

With relation to the existing houses in Stamford Road, which are currently outside the
village envelope, he felt that these should be included as far as their existing
boundaries.

In relation to the Garden Centre site, there have been flooding problems in the
gardens of the new houses in Orchard Close. The Garden Centre currently has
outline planning permission for one dwelling. The owners have already suggested
they would be willing to incorporate some affordable housing on this site if necessary.
However a previous application for four houses on this site has been turned down. It
was not however clear whether there were covenant restrictions on this site in relation
to agricultural use.

It was suggested that the Sawmill should be included in the boundary, along with the
terraced cottages by the allotment (excluding the allotment) but including the Stonepit
Land.

Councillor Bellamy suggested that the piece of land adjacent to the A43 and the
recreation field could be included in the village boundary for use as additional car
parking, perhaps incorporating a small mews.

It was felt that the field by the side of the A43 in the centre of the village which used
to form part of Miss Sherwin’s estate should not at present be earmarked for
development . (It is in fact under private ownership).


                                       Page 2 (Special meeting 13.10.07)
Councillor Watson was in favour of the whole site off Bright Trees Road being
included in the village envelope for development as long as the infrastructure was in
place to support it. This would avoid the development becoming separate from the
rest of the village.

Councillor Fisk suggested that such a development would have a different character to
the neighbouring properties and should be limited to that piece of land that adjoins the
A43. She also felt that development at that end of the village was moving away from
the centre, i.e the Cross area and that development should be shared between that area
and the area of the Sawmill to balance things out.

Councillor Watson argued that a development that attracted Section 106 funding
could perhaps incorporate some sort of facility for young people e.g. a cycle track,
particularly as it is quite a long way away from the Recreation Field and its facilities.

In summary the following areas were suggested to be included in the village envelope
of Geddington:

   (1) Existing properties in Stamford Road running along their existing boundaries.
   (2) The new houses that have been built at the corner of Kettering Road and
       Queen Street
   (3) Orchard Close and the Garden Centre but not the piece of land that adjoins the
       Garden Centre
   (4) The Sawmill, the Youth Club building and around the back of the barns (but
       not the Allotment), running down by the side of the existing row of cottages in
       Grafton Road.
   (5) With relation to the land off Bright Trees Road, it will have to be decided
       what is best for the village. Any development should take traffic out of the
       centre of the village. Therefore this seems a logical area to be developed.
       The larger piece of land could be included in the village envelope or a smaller
       area with trade off from the Sawmill site.

Councillors Fisk and Buckseall were in favour of a ‘trade off’ between this site and
the Sawmill site.

Councillors Barber, Rowley and Watson were in favour of the whole site being
included in development.

Councillor Bellamy voted for trade off. Therefore a casting vote was needed resulting
in maintaining the present boundary at Bright Trees/chase view

Councillor Bellamy had the casting vote and she also voted in favour of the whole site
being developed.

Newton
Newton is a limited development village. It was agreed that the defunct barns should
be included in the village boundary as they could be developed following the existing
footprint.
                                             Page 3 (Special meeting 13.10.07)
Little Oakley
It was agreed that the barns area should be included in the village boundary but that
the rest of the boundary should be left as it is.

Precept
With regard to suggestions for additional funding from precept in the coming years,
Councillor Barber suggested that there might be a need for money for small jobs such
as improving the state of the garden at the entrance to the Recreation Field, repairs to
The Meadows entrance etc. Councillor Watson suggested that such work could be
carried out from present funds.

He has also had no success in determining who owns the piece of land behind the
notice board near the church. It was pointed out that Councillor Gordon has been
cutting the grass for more than 12 years, so there is an argument that it could
potentially belong to the Parish Council.

Councillor Bellamy informed the Parish Council that English Heritage have suggested
the Cross lighting repairs my cost more than initially anticipated. However County
Councillor Harker’s contribution will be to a maximum level of £1.50 per voter.

In relation to facilities for young people in the village, e.g. skateboarding facilities etc,
Councillor Buckseall agreed to find out the entrance fee for the Skateboard Park in
Corby, how long children can stay there and the cost of a 12-16 seater bus to hire,             CB
were the Parish Council to consider running trips for them.

Following a discussion it was agreed that the best way forward would be to ask for a
precept to bring the total income up to the level it has been before.

All the above will be put to the villagers at a public meeting on 17th November 2007.

Any other business
A representative from Beebee estates would like to arrange a public exhibition of their
proposals for development of land between Newton and Corby (part Corby and part
Kettering Council land) on 8.11.07. It was felt that this should be arranged by them
but perhaps a better venue would be Little Oakley Meeting Place, as Little Oakley
would be most affected.

                There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.40 a.m.



                                                Page 4 (Special meeting 13.10.07)

								
To top