MINUTES OF AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL
HELD IN THE VILLAGE HALL, SOUTH CERNEY
ON FRIDAY 1 MARCH 2002

The Chairperson Cllr Mrs Gardiner opened the meeting at 7.30pm.

Seventeen members of the public were present.

APOLOGY
Cllr Mrs Chapman had sent her apology being unable to attend the meeting.

Cllr Mrs Gardiner called this extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council to discuss its response to Westbury Homes' planning appeal.

Cllr Nicholas stated that this appeal had been the subject of considerable debate and the public meeting held on the previous evening in the United Church Hall in Clarks Hay was a genuine reflection of the differing opinions held by residents. Opinions were divided between residents of the village and some members of the Parish Council. He suggested that there were two propositions to consider: (a) to object with the proviso that if the appeal was to favour Westbury Homes then certain conditions should be imposed or (b) not to object in principle but ask for the same conditions to be imposed on the developers if their appeal was successful.

Councillors then discussed the implications of the proposed Conditions.

Cllr Harris was concerned, for example, that the children's play area be on the site.

Cllr Dunn suggested that the developers provide a full and adequate sewerage system for the whole village.

Cllr Mrs Spriggs agreed with Cllr Nicholas on the list of Conditions he had suggested but queried the need for the new houses referring to the Local District Plan to back her argument.

Cllr Mrs Gardiner reminded Cllr Mrs Spriggs that the official response from a previous Parish Council had been to accept the development of the CAMAS site so as to save other green field sites in the village from a similar fate although it was accepted by all that these areas had not been included in the Local Plan Review.

Cllr Mrs Spriggs repeated that the CAMAS site was not allocated for development and under the Gloucestershire Structure Plan there was no need for such houses and she insisted that she would object to the development but if the plan was given approval then planning gain would be required.

Cllr Mrs Gardiner reported that residents from Oak Way and Sudeley Drive with whom she had spoken were concerned that if the area was not developed for residential use then surely it would be used industrially.

Cllr Stuart quoted from the Gloucestershire Structure Plan for 2016 which stated that the County needed to provide 48,000 new homes and suggested that South Cerney would surely get its share. If the development proceeded in a piecemeal fashion then there would be no gain to the village.

Cllr Mrs Gardiner admonished members of the public for applauding and interrupting proceedings but did invite comments from them towards the end of the debate.

Cllr Nicholas said that the Parish Council should listen not to the loudest voices but to the wisest ones and said that as the final decision was primarily beyond its control the Parish Council should plan ahead. He stated that the Parish Council's response may not influence the decision of the Inspector but it should be made clear to the Inspector the difference of opinion held by Parish Councillors.

Cllr King was not in favour of development generally but was concerned as to the other uses for which the site could be used. On balance he preferred it to be used for residential development rather than industrial.

Cllr Harris said that it would be better to develop the CAMAS land rather than a green field site.

Cllr Mrs Spriggs said that planning gain was a recent phenomenon. It was unfair to compare the lack of planning gain that other older developments had achieved with what was expected now. She had calculated that there were approximately 1,057 houses currently in South Cerney and a further 200 will mean an increase of 20% and this was unacceptable.

Cllr Stuart compared a recent development of 197 new homes by Westbury Homes in Lechlade which was of a similar proportion to that of the proposed increase in South Cerney and surmised that it had made no great change to that settlement. Cllr Stuart said that he would support a proposition that the Parish Council would not object to the proposal with the Conditions attached.

Cllr Mrs Spriggs argued that it was not correct to compare Lechlade with South Cerney as it was a town with a selection of shops, square and bank.

Cllr Harris said that the Parish Council should look to the future and what gain could be attained if the appeal by Westbury Homes was successful.

Cllr Mrs Gardiner then invited members of the public to speak. Mr Murphy sympathised with the Parish Council and the dilemma it which it found itself but encouraged Parish Councillors to reject the appeal by Westbury Homes. Other members of the public were more forthright with their objections and no member of the public present supported the appeal.

Cllr Mrs Gardiner then asked the Parish Council to vote on which motion they wished to support. It was a choice between objecting to the appeal by Westbury Homes with Conditions to be imposed or not objecting in principal with proposed Conditions. This motion was proposed by Cllr Stuart and seconded by Cllr Gardiner. The Parish Council voted 6 to 4 in favour of not objecting in principle with proposed Conditions and the motion was carried.

It was then proposed by Cllr Stuart and seconded by Cllr Gardiner that the Parish Council does not object to the principle of Westbury Homes being granted outline planning permission for residential development on the remainder of the CAMAS site. However, this non-objection is strictly subject to the following being imposed as binding preconditions of such development.
* A limit of 150 on the total number of homes to be constructed (whether on the subject land, or any adjoining land)
* Appropriate upgrading of the main sewerage infrastructure in the village
* Inclusion of a community hall building of a suitable size and design within the site, together with sufficient car parking, the entire design, construction, fitting out and furnishing costs being met by the developer
* Inclusion of "affordable housing" for local people, including a good proportion of "shared ownership" dwellings
* Construction of "village gateway" traffic calming measures
* A new fully equipped children's playground, of a size appropriate to the scale of the development, within the site
* Transfer of the adjoining wooded area to the Parish Council for public recreational use and/or a nature reserve
* The contribution to local authority education costs to include a proportion for improvement of the village's pre-school playgroup facility
* A new dedicated pedestrian and cycle access from the development to Broadway Lane and also an appropriate pedestrian crossing feature on Broadway Lane to improve safer access to the village school
* A new public bridleway from Kingfisher Place to Broadway Lane along the northern edge of Lake 16

Cllr Mrs Spriggs called for a recorded vote on this put motion which was accepted by Chairperson Cllr Mrs Gardiner.

The Clerk recorded that Cllrs Harris, Nicholas, Mrs Gardiner, Gardiner, Stuart and King voted in favour and Cllrs Mrs Chubb, Dunn, Mrs Pearse and Mrs Spriggs voted against. The motion was therefore carried by a majority of 6-4 in favour.


Quotes for the refurbishment of the Upper Up Car Park
Quotations for the refurbishment of the car park had been received from seven contractors:
A. & B. Fencing, Roofing Ltd.
A. C. Nurden Ltd
Landmark Paddock Services
M & B Contractors
P. Purvey Groundwork Contractor
Phoenix Building & Decorating Contractors
T. D. Construction
It was proposed by Cllr Mrs Gardiner and seconded Cllr Stuart that Phoenix Building & Decorating Contractors be awarded the work as they had produced the lowest quotation. The Parish Council voted 7 in favour with 3 members abstaining. The motion was therefore carried and the Clerk was asked to inform all the contractors.

There being no further business the Chairperson Cllr Mrs Gardiner closed the meeting at 8.50pm.