/ Parish Council / Minutes / 11th February 2022



CREECH ST MICHAEL PARISH COUNCIL


Minutes for the Meeting of Creech St Michael Parish Council [CSMPC] held at the Creech Village Hall on Friday 11 February 2022 at 7:00pm



Councillor attendance

Cllr Annabelle Peters – Chair

AP

present

Cllr Margaret Gover

MG

present

Cllr Simon Hutchings - Vice Chair 

SH

apologies

Cllr Yamina Guest

YG

present

Cllr Brenda Brighton

BB

present

Cllr Paul Tucker

PT

present

Cllr Peter Brown

PB

present




Cllr Charlie Cudlip

CC

present




Cllr Neil Davidson

ND

present





Also Present: County Cllr D. Fothergill Somerset County Council (SCC), Andy Lehner and Rebecca Randell from West of England Developments, 37 members of the public and the CSM Assistant to Parish Clerk.

Meeting started at 7:00pm


Chair’s welcome - AP welcomed all and opened the meeting stating that there would be a change of order from the agenda bringing planning forward allowing the public to then leave if they wanted to.

Talk by Andy Lehner - Developer of Derham Close, from West of England Developments [Taunton] No 2 Ltd.

Andy Lehner introduced the development and distributed plans to the councillors, he then handed over to Rebecca Mandal, his planning expert, who carried out the presentation. Rebecca spoke for 11 minutes then took questions from councillors and public for a further 22 minutes.


Cllr Fothergill joined the meeting at 19.35.

Public Question time - The Chair invited questions from the public. 7 members of the public spoke in relation to licensing application MA/52586, including the landlady for the pub who highlighted that they do not wish to trade for the hours applied for but they were forced to apply for the longer hours in case of an event.


Meeting adjourned allowing most of the public to leave at 19.51.

Meeting reconvened 19.53.

To receive any apologies for absence

Cllrs agreed to accept the apologies of Cllr Hutchings due to the meeting re-schedule date.

Declarations of Interests
5.1 Declarations of Individual Members

ND – confirmed a conflict of interest - has pecuniary interest in the Canal car park.

Cllr Cudlip – license application MA/52586

Cllr Brown – license application MA/52586

5.2 Dispensation Request

The councillors named in 5.1 had submitted a dispensation request to enable them to take part in discussions with regard to the named license application. PC granted the dispensations.

Cllr Cudlip – license application MA/52586 - Proposed by BB | Seconded by ND | all in favour

Cllr Brown – license application MA/52586 - Proposed by CC | Seconded by MG | 6 in favour | 1 abstained

Planning Applications

To consider the following application/s and to agree the Planning Development and Transport’s Panel’s recommendations.

14/21/0047/HYB

20/12/2021

Application for a Hybrid Planning application for Outline planning permission with all matters reserved, except for access related to the A38, for the second phase of the Monkton Heathfield development comprising of a residential and mixed use Garden Neighbourhood including up to 1210 No. dwellings, up to 4.83 hectares of land for strategic employment uses, 8 hectares of land for a through school, mixed use district centre, community facilities, green infrastructure, drainage works, land for a 600 No. space 'Bus and Ride' facility, relief road (EER2) and associated works and for Full planning permission for the erection of 240 No. dwellings with access, including temporary access arrangements, and associated infrastructure works on land east of the A38, south of Walford Cross, Monkton Heathfield.

RECOMMENDATION:

to OBJECT


APPENDIX A

















Proposed by PB | Seconded by CC | all in favour

14/21/0035

24/12/2021

Replacement of fence and hedgerow at South View, Creech Heathfield Road, Creech Heathfield (retention of works already undertaken)

RECOMMENDATION:

to NOT SUPPORT the planning application for the following reasons:

Creech St Michael Parish Council DO NOT support this retrospective planning application as the effect of the prominent 1.8m high, green steel galvanised mesh fence and steel posts [more appropriate to an industrial setting] adjacent to the highway is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding street scene and is, therefore, contrary to Policy DM1d of the Taunton Deane Core Strategy 2011-2028, and would set a precedent for 1.8m high steel fences adjacent to the highway to be installed around the parish.

Should Somerset West and Taunton Council grant planning approval, CSMPC request that a Condition is made for the growth of the hedge to be controlled in order that the hedge does not grow through the mesh and obstruct/narrow the highway.

Proposed by CC | Seconded by PB | 7 in favour | 1 abstained

14/21/0024

06/01/2022

Application for Outline Planning with all matters reserved, except for access and landscaping, for the erection of up to 28 No. dwellings with associated works, formation of access, landscaping, ground engineering and drainage works on land to the west of Derham Close, Creech St Michael

RECOMMENDATION: Creech St Michael Parish Council OBJECT to this planning application for the following reasons:

The plan amending DrNo 21040-SKO Rev A Proposed Access which shows an improvement to the access into the development having a 1.5 metre width pavement is acknowledged. The plan amending 09/12/2021 DrNo 3205.001 Rev A Wider Landscape plan which features a revised landscape plan showing a cider orchard, a woodland copse as a buffer to the motorway, shade gap adjacent to the woodland developed as a meadow grass habitat is also acknowledged, as is the reduction from 35 dwellings to 28 dwellings [plan amending 30/11/2021 DrNo 15.37.101A. Site Layout].

However, the plan amending changes to the original plans do not alter the original objection of the Creech St Michael Parish Council which was that the proposal is contrary to the Local Plan Policy DM2 (Development in the Countryside), Policy SD1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable developments) of the adopted Core Strategy 2011-2028), Policy SB1 (Settlement Boundaries) of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Plan 2016. Therefore, Creech St Michael Parish Council still OBJECTS to this outline planning application on an unallocated site in the open countryside of Creech St Michael.

The most appropriate time to consider proposals for new developments in and around Creech St Michael is when the NHP is being reviewed.

Proposed by CC | Seconded by MG | 6 in favour | 2 abstained

14/22/0003/LB

14/01/2022

Erection of shed with concrete base at North End Farm, North End, Creech St Michael

Applicants have been notified by Rebecca Miller SWT Planning on 19.01.2022 that Listed Building Consent is not required.

14/22/0002

14/01/2022

Change of use of land to residential curtilage with erection of shed/workshop with concrete base at North End Farm North End Creech St Michael

RECOMMENDATION: As one of the applicants, A Birch, is an ex-Parish Councillor who currently has professional and personal involvement with Creech St Michael Parish Council, the CSM Parish Councillors do not consider it appropriate to make a recommendation on this planning application.

Proposed by ND | Seconded by PT | all in favour

14/22/0006

19/01/2022

Erection of a single storey extension to the front and side of 3 Kendall Close

RECOMMENDATION: Creech St Michael Parish Council SUPPORTS this planning application.

Proposed by ND | Seconded by PB | all in favour

MA/52586

24/02/2022

Application for on street trading. The Bell Inn carpark, Creech St. Michael

RECOMMENDATION:

to NOT SUPPORT


APPENDIX B

Proposed by BB | Seconded by YG | 4 in favour | 4 abstained

Cllr Brighton made a statement that council can only put forward recommendations based on the information provided on the planning applications.

Cllr Brown offered the planning committee to meet with the applicant of MA/52586 to see if there may be a different way that CSMPC could support.

Action: Planning committee to organise to meet with the licensee of the pub.

Action: Assistant to Clerk to inform SW&T Planning and Licensing of the CSMPC comments.


To receive County and District Councillors’ Reports - Cllr Fothergill is happy for council to read his pre-circulated report. All councillors were happy with this having seen the report already.

Minutes - Cllrs agreed the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2022 were an accurate record. (These had previously been circulated to Cllrs). The Chair signed a copy of the minutes for the records.

Proposed by BB | seconded CC | all in favour

Matters arising – not discussed.

Finance

1. Cllrs agreed the monthly payments in the February Financial Transaction Report (circulated in advance of the meeting) (APPENDIX C) with the exception of the canal gate quote which can be voted on under 14.2.

Proposed by ND | seconded PT | all in favour

2. Confirmation of appointment of Steve Altria to provide a financial management service -

Cllr Brown stated that an informal offer had been made to Steve, now seeking permission to create a formal offer.

Proposed by MG | seconded ND | 7 in favour | 1 abstained

3. To agree who will be the proper officer and who will be RFO for the council – moved to confidential.

4. Interim Internal Audit Report Financial Year 2021-22 - Appointment of Auditor

Cllr Brown updated council that the previous auditor had declined to quote for the work, Jill Larcombe completed the interim audit for a very reasonable price, proposal is to appoint Jill Larcombe.

Proposed by AP | seconded PT | all in favour

5. Bank Reconciliation as at 31/12/21

Proposed by PB | seconded ND | all in favour

6. Asset Register

Cllr Brown proposed 3 teams of councillors to check assets to enable sign off in the March meeting;

  • BB, PB - seats, notice boards, dog bins, bus shelters

  • SH, CC, YG, PT - everything to do with the Rec Park

  • AP, ND, MG - defibrillators, phone boxes, office equipment

Use of 3 little words to be looked at a later date.

Action: To check items and report back in good time before the March meeting.

7. Connecting Communities Fund promotion and administration

Cllr Brown explained that 2 members of CSMPC who are no longer bid and received some funding (£6,500) that needs allocating by May 2022.

Proposed options:

  1. Give the money back

  2. Try to extend the time beyond May 2022

  3. Identify a parish councillor to advertise the scheme and administer the funds

  4. Identify a non parish councillor to advertise the scheme and administer the funds acting as a panel

  5. Previous clerk Steve Altria to advertise the scheme and administer the funds on locum rates

Council discussed and decided to ask Sarah Elliott (previous councillor) with second option being number 5. Mr Birch, in attendance from the public and a previous councillor, also offered to help with advertising.

Cllr Brown added that originally council set the grant bids guideline of up to £200 but with the timings in mind this should increase to up to £1500.

Action: Cllr Gover to approach Sarah Elliott.

Proposed by BB | seconded PT | all in favour

8. Ham notice board payment – already approved under payments.

9. Assistant clerk overtime and not contacting her unless an emergency – moved to confidential.

10. Church burial ground grant proposal for agreement (to pay £685) – already approved under payments.

11. Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) £125 donation

Cllr Davidson suggested CSMPC make this donation as per previous years although not done in recent years - already approved under payments.

Action: Assistant to Clerk to post cheques and Steve Altria to make any other approved payments.


Cllr Brown left the meeting 20.42 and returned at 20.44.

Computer/Phone for Assistant to Clerk

Cllr Davidson spoke of the need to purchase another laptop and phone for the new clerk once appointed. Cllr Peters also mentioned the need for another external back up drive.

Cllr Cudlip proposed a budget of £700.

Proposed by ND | seconded MG | all in favour

Use of the stage

Cllr Brighton was concerned that no written proposal had been seen before the meeting and therefore a vote could not take place.

Cllr Cudlip confirmed he is happy to vote in the March meeting and will speak under Correspondence.

Standing Orders - moved to Correspondence

14.1 Planning, Developments & Transport Panel

Cllr Brown spoke about the traffic calming signage that has been previously discussed and implemented in the village, and informed council of a meeting with the engineer who was hopeful for more future improvements but no timescale had been provided. Cllr Fothergill added that a date of 9th March had hopefully been negotiated.

14.2 Canal Panel

- Revised quotation for Canal Car Park Gate

Cllr Davidson requested a vote for the revised quotation for the Canal Car Park Gate of £1023.60

Proposed by PT | seconded ND | all in favour

- Signs and notice boards or the Canal and Rec Park

Cllr Cudlip reported not having received a reply having written to them.

Action: Cllr Cudlip to chase for the next meeting.

14.3 Rec Park Panel

Cllr Gover had circulated terms of reference before the meeting for the panel and has co-opted a new member (Sarah Elliott) which needed approval.

New member - Proposed by MG | seconded AP | all in favour

Terms of reference - Proposed by AP | seconded BB | all in favour

Cllr Gover reported having written to Steve Altria requesting the Rec Park expenses so far for the year and used those figures for future projections to the end of Marc. Cllr Gover found there is a large sum still to pay and council need to either find a way to reduce the amount or raise some money. Options include renting some of the facilities/buildings out or reducing the security/locking costs. Cllr Brown suggested contacting other parishes to see if we could join to reduce costs of playground management i.e. grass cutting etc. Cllr Gover also mentioned looking into grants.

There was a discussion for best practice to authorise paying for the Rec Park maintenance i.e. line painting.

Action: Clerk to find out the delegation rules for a panel and to report to Cllr Gover to enable Cllr Gover to create a proposal for the next meeting. May need to change the terms of reference.


Cllr Guest left the meeting 21.06.


14.4 PIP working group

Cllr Cudlip mentioned the next meeting, scheduled for the 24th February.

14.5 Communications and Website working group

Cllr Brighton mentioned the next meeting, scheduled for the 15th February.

The surgery was discussed, Cllr Peters has created a list for councillors to put their names against dates. Cllr Gover and Cllr Peters will do the 19th February to start it off.

The parish address was discussed as it is normally the clerks address, as CSMPC currently do not have a clerk it is proposed to use the assistant to the clerks address in the mean time.

Proposed by AP | seconded PT | 7 in favour | 1 abstained

14.6 Footpaths/ Rights of Way

The written report from the Parish Footpath volunteers was noted with thanks.

14.7 Staffing Committee

- Appointment of additional member(s) to the Staffing Committee

Cllr Davidson reported Cllr Cudlip having stepped down from the committee and there was already a vacancy, it was proposed to add Cllr Gover and Cllr Tucker.

Proposed by AP | seconded ND | 5 in favour | 2 abstained

14.8 Youth Panel

- To agree funding

- Grant money proposed expenditure

Cllr Davidson talked of the funding running out from March 2022.

Options are to no longer have a youth club or to re-start funding, needing around £7000 a year.

Council do not have the money in the budget and Cllr Cudlip mentioned the need to seek out grants and funding. Council currently have a community grant, it is suggested an application is submitted to apply for some of the funding to be used for the youth club.

Action: To create a proposal for up to £1500 to apply for the Community Grant money.


Cllr Guest re-joined the meeting 21.17.


14.9 Finance Panel

Opening up and Connecting Communities Grant Funding – already discussed under finance.

Sheep Worrying - email from John Read, Wortheys Farm, Worthy Lane, Creech St Michael, Taunton, Somerset, TA3 5EF.

Council discussed the issue and were sympathetic but there is no action that CSMPC can take as it is a police matter.

Parish Council Surgery

Cllr Peters had created a list of dates for councillors to put their names down.

Connecting Communities Fund: promotion and administration

Already discussed under finance.

Correspondence

The stage - Cllr Cudlip proposes he has use of the stage, he will let the chair and clerk know when he intends to use it and will pay, if charity gig then free of charge.

Standing orders - Council discussed the adoption of the updated 2018 standing orders with CSMPCs amendments. Cllr Brighton proposes this is put on hold until after the May elections. Council discussed and decided to defer until after May elections and when council have a new clerk in place.

New Matters to be carried forward

Under canal panel - Signs and notice boards or the Canal and Rec Park CC [V]


Councillors took a break at 21.35

Councillors reconvened at 21.40

Councillors decided to exclude Public and Press for the items below.

The Clerk was asked if she would prefer to leave.


Cllr Davidson took the following notes:


To receive an update and agree recommendations from the Staffing Committee

Cllr Davidson advised that he had still been unable to make contact with Ian Morgan of SW Councils HR team, who the PC had asked to help get our Staffing Policies and Procedures updated.

Action: Cllr Brown offered to try and contact Ian. 


To approve the Assistant to the Clerk’s JD

The DRAFT JD for the Assistant to the Clerk that Cllr Brown and Cllr Brighton had helped refine since the January meeting was reviewed. Cllr Brighton requested that, as agreed at the January PC meeting, the JD should state that a weekly time sheet to be completed and submitted to the Parish Clerk, copied to the SC Chair and any overtime must have PRIOR approval from the SC Chair. Subject to these factors, a vote took place to agree and accept it. 

Proposed by ND | seconded CC | all in favour

Assistant to the Clerk overtime and not contacting her unless an emergency

Cllr Davidson advised that TE had done an excellent job of getting to grips with the role in the short time she had been working with the PC.  It was recognised that she could not do the Clerk’s and her own role in the time available, and therefore SA, the former Clerk was assisting with the RFO responsibilities, as well as being available to assist TE with any bespoke [Clerk related] queries. To ensure that TE was not overstretched, her overtime each week should be capped at 5 hours, which had already been communicated to TE, and that she would be asked to submit a timesheet.  Cllr Cudlip suggested a ‘reverse time sheet’.  It was agreed that if in week 1 TE sought to identify the ‘work items’ in a column, then in subsequent weeks TE could just record the time (if any) against each line. 

Action: Cllr Davidson and TE

Assistant to the Clerk’s pay.  Cllr Davidson noted that TE had been doing much of a Clerk’s role since she had joined the PC (in the absence of a Clerk). Although it was noted most of the Finance aspects had been allocated to SA.  To be fair to TE it was agreed to pay her £13.21/hr for all her hours until a new Clerk was in post.  This included January’s hours.  A vote took place to agree and accept it. 

Proposed by ND | seconded PT | all in favour

Action: Cllr Davidson to notify TE and SA.

To agree who will be the Proper Officer and who will be RFO for the Council

It was agreed that SA should be asked to formally take on the RFO role, which he had indicated to Cllr Brown he would be willing to do. 

Action: Cllr Davidson.

It was decided to leave the Proper Officer post, (which has numerous legal responsibilities) vacant until a new Clerk is appointed, as it would be unfair to ask TE to do this at the current time.

Clerk advert.  

It was noted that there had been no interest or applicants for the Clerk role.  It was agreed that we needed to move from ‘free’ advertising to paid for advertising.  The Staffing Committee, (SC)  were asked to pick this up at their forthcoming meeting.  The advert had already been agreed.  In addition, it was agreed that Cllr Gover would place the advert in the Parish Magazine.  Cllr Peters would supply Cllr Gover with the approved advert. 

Action: Cllr Peters and Cllr Gover.

Ex-Clerk’s pension and forward salary. 

Cllr Davidson read out the document circulated in advance of the meeting.  A vote took place to agree and accept it. 

Proposed by ND | seconded CC | all in favour

Assistant to the Clerk’s pension. 

Cllr Davidson advised that TE had been asked to identify a suitable Auto-Enrolment Pension for the eligible PC staff.  Cllr Davidson was asked to re-iterate, by way of a letter, that this was an AE pension and not the Somerset Council one. 

Action: Cllr Davidson.

It was suggested that the SC investigate employer insurance.

Action: SC at their upcoming meeting.


Meeting finished at 22.10


Tamsin Ely, CSMPC Assistant to Clerk, 07708680797, Email clerk@creechstmichael.net


Appendix A

14/21/0047/HYB

This statement represents an initial set of comments and concerns by Creech St Michael Parish Council. Creech St Michael Parish contains approximately 80-90% of the proposed development MH2. The area contained within this hybrid application, for detailed permission for 240 houses is within West Monkton Parish. Creech St Michael Parish Council supports the comments made by WMPC about this part of the hybrid application and hopes that WMPC will, in turn, support Creech PC comments on the development of the rest of the site when detailed proposals are made.

The first comment Creech St Michael PC wishes to make is that the level of consultation with the Parish Council for the area, which will contain the bulk of this development, has been totally unacceptable. The Parish Council expected, and was led to believe, that it would be properly consulted by the developer and the District Council. Notwithstanding Covid there has been no attempt by Persimmon/Redrow to engage with Creech St Michael PC in any meaningful way in the run up to this application being made to SWT Council. Likewise, the District Council has so far been unable to organise any briefing meetings. Also, a major concern to the Parish Council, caused by applications of this scale, is that no hard copy materials are available. It would help if developers were required to supply such materials to enable Parish Councils make their comments more easily.

OBJECT: Creech St Michael Parish Council objects to this application on the grounds that it is premature as inadequate consultation has taken place with local communities to resolve issues of concern from the documentation supplied by the applicant there is no clear indication of how Garden Town principles will be embedded in this development; how truly distinctive styles of housing and layout of spaces and facilities will provide a remarkable living environment. The development when completed is likely to be yet another suburban housing estate with maximum density housing, largely in cul-de- sacs, out of the national house builders pattern book; not reflecting in any way the vernacular architecture of surrounding villages. There will be no room for contributions from other local architects and builders who have a better understanding of the local context and would introduce more variety. MH1 is a clear indication of what the development will be like unless the house builders listen to and take on board the comments of locals and local councils.

It is also highly likely that house building will proceed well in advance of the provision of the facilities residents will need and in advance of the completion of the ERR. Again, MH1 and the inability of the housebuilders even to deliver local shops does not bode well. There must be clear trigger points for provision of facilities, and these must be enforced by the Local Authority.

As the majority of the development area lies in the Parish of Creech St Michael, Creech St Michael PC will object in the strongest possible terms to this and future planning applications which do not include clear programmes and trigger points for the provision of necessary infrastructure, shops and community facilities.

OBJECT: Creech St Michael Parish Council objects because this application does not include a clear programme for how this development will proceed and does not include any clear trigger points or programme for the provision of necessary facilities and infrastructure

The implications of this scale of development for surrounding village communities, particularly Creech St Michael, has not been assessed properly. The transport reports are flawed. It is inconceivable and beyond common sense that a proposed development of 1600 houses (the total modelled) will result in only 29 extra peak vehicular movements per day through Creech village. Have the implications of future congestion on the A38 near Creech Castle been properly factored in, particularly in terms of residents of MH2 working at Nexus and at destinations to the east? Evidence from the growth of traffic rat running through Creech village suggests that a large proportion of those journeys will chose Langaller Lane, North End, St Michael Road, Lipe Lane, Ruishton Lane as the ‘faster’ option. The second serious concern is that the ‘Receptor Sensitivity’ assessment is flawed. Surprisingly this assessment only includes the link of road from the Langaller roundabout to the edge of Creech Village. This assessment is about impact. The assessment should have included the whole link, Langaller Lane, North End, St Michael Road, Lipe Lane. It is not surprising that the assessment finds the ‘sensitivity’ of Langaller Lane to be ‘negligible’; there are no properties fronting onto this stretch of road, unlike North End and St Michael Road. This analysis is totally rejected by Creech Parish Council as it does not adequately deal with the impact of traffic on residents and pedestrians in Creech village where there are serious pedestrian safety issues accepted by SCC and SWTC.

OBJECT: Creech St Michael Parish Council OBJECTS to this planning application on the grounds that the traffic modelling conclusions are simplistic and do not take full account of likely future driver behaviour; and the potential impact of this scale of development on the wellbeing of residents in Creech St Michael village has not been properly assessed.

Having raised the objections above to this application, Creech St Michael Parish Council wishes to be positive and work constructively with the applicants and their consultants to help achieve a good quality residential environment for future residents of the development and to foster integration into the community in Creech Parish.

The following are points which Creech St Michael PC would like to flag up as issues which still need to be resolved before any permission is granted:

As the basic layout of the proposed development has been fixed for about the last 3 years since other options were dropped there is no comment on the proposed disposition of the main uses on the site at this stage.

The Parish Council can see some benefit in retaining the existing A38 on its current route in terms of using existing infrastructure but would expect to see 30mph limit on the length of road between the Langaller roundabout and the cricket club roundabout with several safe crossing points.

The Parish Council is concerned that the developers are proposing to significantly reduce the amount of retail floorspace at the District Centre even though they have failed to provide any retail space on MH1. Further discussion about this proposal is required.

The experience of MH1 is that the type of layout the developers are proposing [small cul-de-sacs] results in inadequate parking provision overall and that where parking is provided in rear courts this also often results in increased on street parking.

The proposal for development of Phase 1 of MH2 contains a disproportionate number of 4 bed properties and only 13 bungalows [WMPCNP’s requirement is 10%]. This is contrary to the two parishes neighbourhood plans and will not be acceptable to Creech St Michael PC if proposed for the remainder of MH2

Creech St Michael PC expects to be fully consulted on the provision of all community facilities and amenities on the MH2 development as the Parish Council with responsibility for the majority of the site.

Below are more comments which CSMPC would like to register agreement:

Creech St Michael Parish Council [CSMPC] AGREES and SUPPORTS the following responses made by External Consultee West Monkton Parish Council [12/01/2022]:

The Extent of the Development – The Parish Council believes that the A38 should be included, and traffic management measures included also. The Parish Council believes that the early construction and opening of the ERR2 to through traffic will not only discourage traffic from using the former A3259 through Monkton Heathfield but will also enable safer access to the construction site and enable safe connectivity to MH1 and Monkton Heathfield for all concerned.”

Phasing – Despite the MH1 development commencing in 2012, none of the public open spaces, play parks, attenuation ponds or highways have been adopted. To avoid the same situation occurring on MH2, the S106 agreement should include a requirement for each phase.” “In addition to a clear phasing plan, trigger points must be agreed [and not amended] to ensure that the infrastructure needed is in place before too many houses are built. The Parish Council would like to be consulted on the trigger points and any re-negotiation of them, and preferably guaranteed by a bond.”

Clear requirements for a bus service, play area, and first retail outlet as soon as first houses are built is required.”

The ERR2 should be delivered before any building work on Phases 2-6 begins and starts from Walford Cross to avoid disruption of homes, community and ecology/environment built in Phase 1 of MH2.”

If not, an alternative route for construction vehicles should be created for use from the commencement of the development.”

The current plan will mean that the continuing traffic problems will continue till the whole development is established and ERR extension finished could be 10-15 years away, not acceptable. The Parish Council has suggested numerous times that HIF funding should be applied for to ensure road network is constructed first.”

District Centre – General – The submitted plans for the District Centre will not deliver the required facilities as laid out in the Core Strategy SS1 Design Principles document.”

Access to the school could be provided from the existing A38 reducing care movements in the District Centre and rather than going through the District Centre, the road could be positioned to go around the rear of it; this would enable deliveries and loading/unloading too. As far as possible the District Centre should be accessed only by foot and bicycle.”

The spine road through the District Centre isn’t supported. The mixing of pedestrians, cyclists and traffic is not supported on safety grounds.”

Retail - “As no retail provision was provided in MH1, the District Centre retail provision to MH2 needs to be adequate for the need of both MH1 and MH2.”

The retail units that are provided should be suitable for all use, without restrictions.”

A penalty clause should be included in the S106 agreement to be charged if the District Centre is not delivered and replaced by more housing.”

Community Facilities – “The community facilities should not have residential units above it. If a two-storey building is required, then the community building can be two-storeys to allow offices and meeting rooms above and a small resource centre to enable community building: located adjoining the school boundary for ease of collaborative working.”

The community facility should be handed over to the community/Parish Council for management on its completion.”

The local Scout Group has highlighted to the Parish Council that it is in need of a serviced site for a Scout HQ and Girlguiding UK also require a site for a Guide Hall. Suitable sites should be identified within MH2 to meet these needs.”

Health Centre – “NHS calculations on patient numbers support evidence for immediate need for a medical centre to be included in the District Centre.”

Highways – “If a new ERR2 is constructed at the start of the development, the bus gate currently proposed for the Monkton Heathfield Road could be relocated to the south of Walford Cross with a financial contribution made to install a bus gate at this location. This would at a stroke stop through traffic from driving through Monkton Heathfield and instead use the ERR2, ERR and WRR as intended.”

Upon completion of ERR2 the road between the Langaller roundabout and Cricket Club roundabout [the existing ERR] could then be traffic calmed to discourage its use and enable safe pedestrian and cycle movement between MH1 and MH2.”

The bus and ride and rapid transport routes should be in place as soon as possible to encourage use of public transport.”

If the bus and ride isn’t available from Phase 1, a S106 contribution should be made to extend bus route 2/2A serving MH1 to phases in the new development.”

A pedestrian road crossing should be included in the masterplan to coincide with the public right of way or shared footway/cycleway across ERR2.!

There is an opportunity to improve the Walford Cross junction, an accident black spot, as part of this development by moving the proposed roundabout on A38 to join to ERR2 further to the north to replace the existing Walford Cross junction.”

School – “The access for drop off/pick up by parents should be from the existing A38 rather than through the District Centre/estate roads. A drop off layby of suitable capacity should be provided to enable this.”

Sports Facilities – “If MH2 is approved without community play pitches, the MH1 pitches should be handed over to the Parish Council immediately and before the MH2 development commences to enable the pitches to be made available to the community as a priority.”

Allotments – “The allotments should be located within the development.”

Phase I Comments – The access road when exiting the Phase 1 site to the south onto the existing A38/ERR1 should be left turn only in the interests of road safety.”

The speed limit on the A38 and ERR1 surrounding the southerly phase 1 development site should be reduced to 30 mph.”

The crossing point included from MH1 to Phase 1 of MH2 must be installed and operational before any properties are occupied on MH2.”

Housing style, design, density and tenure “All apartments must have a Juliet balcony to support health and wellbeing objectives.”

The apartments need to be available so that open market mortgages can be obtained.”

Phase 1 houses too dense to conform to Garden Town Principles/new Design Guide SPD.”

NP policy H2 requires that all dwellings without access to bin storage in the rear garden should have a bin store of suitable dimensions built to the front of the property.”

Bungalows included at rate of 10% of open market housing [existing Neighbourhood Plan Policy].”

The social and affordable housing is too grouped together.”

The proposed properties should be orientated to ensure maximum solar gain.”


Appendix B

Creech St Michael Parish Council previously supported a street trader license for the Gourmet Salad Box in the car park of the Grade II Listed public house The Bell Inn, which is a valued asset of the village. The previous license to operate from the public house’s car park was for one evening per week with selling on the site concluding by 21.00 hours. This operation was welcomed and acceptable in the village centre.

Creech St Michael Parish Council, however, cannot support this current application for the following reasons:

1. The Bell Inn and the Bell field are both identified in the adopted Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan as Assets of Community Value. The Bell Inn is a Grade II Listed building, in the middle of the village, and the siting of a burger van in such a prominent visual position as proposed within the car park, is not appropriate for this Grade II Listed building. The proposed pitch is in an open, elevated part of the site, close to the edge of the public house’s car park and would be unsightly, therefore detrimental to the village street scene.

2. The application is made by Mr Jake Osborne of 77 Gillards Close Wellington TA21 9DX, trading as Juniors Takeaway and is a totally independent business not associated with the pub. The proposal is for 7 days a week from 14.00 hours - 23.00 hours for ‘takeaway’ and not ‘takeaway and delivery’. The applied for 9 hours per day are considered to be excessive and not appropriate for a quiet village centre location. In particular, the residential amenity of the closest neighbouring residents will be affected by the fumes and smoke from the outdoor cooking of the “fast food“; approximately 20 dwellings are within 50 metres of the site. Residents' use and enjoyment of their gardens will be detrimentally impacted by this “fast food” operation, especially in the summer months, from fumes and smoke. The late evening operation applied for will mean there is potential disruption to the surrounding area with noise nuisance generated from extra traffic, car doors slamming, potential for noise from loud music within vehicles. The application shows power from “electricity”. Should this be provided by a generator, 9 hrs a day, seven days a week would be unreasonable and unacceptable.

The proposed trading hours on the application form are considered more suitable for a town centre location, rather than a quiet rural village.

Given the above, Creech St Michael Parish Council would be more supportive of a street trader license if the positioning of a burger van was adjacent to the public house, and given the potential importance of this proposal to the pub if the licensing hours were set at 2 or 3 flexible days a week, between the hours of 14.00 and 21.00 hours on week days and Saturdays, and 14.00 to 18.00 hours on Sundays, and excluding any late evening operation beyond 21.00 hours in this outside location. The Parish Council, on the granting of any license,

would also request a Condition was included for the safeguarding the residential amenity from electronic noise nuisance (music/radio) as requested for in previous license applications.

As The Bell Inn and Bell field are a Grade II listed, the District Council needs to please consider whether Listed Building consent will be required, as the 7-day operation of this business proposed would be within the curtilage of a listed building.

CSM PC, as previously communicated to the Licensing Service, would like to see all neighbouring properties, potentially affected by a license, treated in the same way as all planning applications, and the residents advised of the application.

If the applicant decides to amend the application the Parish Council will be happy to reconsider.


Appendix C


11th February 2022 CSM PC Meeting – Financial Transactions Report

Bills to consider for payment

Detail

Payment type/Cheque no

Amount

(inc VAT)

S Altria

Finance support Jan


£130.00

T Ely

Clerks Jan Expenses


£79.75

T Trump

Caretakers leave cover-12 days


£92.00

A Peters

Repair to the Ham Notice Board – 2 met posts.


£17.00

Creech St Michael Parochial Church Council

Grant towards Burial Ground costs


£685.00

T Ely

Clerks Jan salary


£ 158.20

Citizens Advice Bureau

Grant to CAB donation


£125.00

J Down Contracting Ltd

Canal Car Park Gate and installation


1,023.60

J Larcombe

Interim Audit - INVOICE 464


123.40

Wybone

Bins


1,079.98

3D Security

Rec Park Locking Up


£858.00

Alfies Ices

Refund of Fees paid PIP


£100

CSM Village Hall

Jan 22 Lettings [invoice 611]


£150


Payments made

Detail

Payment

(L=Lloyds Acc)

Amount
(incl VAT)

SALC

CILCA CiLCA - Support Course 17 November

L Online

100.00

3D Security

Rec Park locking up [invoice C901205]

L Online

552.00

SWTC

Inv 63750410 (13 Wks Dog bin Emptying)

L Online

£748.80

R Moreton

(Clerk’s expenses) Dec and Jan

L Online

63.59

HRMC

Tax on salaries Jan

L Online

104.52

K Hutchings

Caretaker's salary Jan

Standing Order

494.00

R Moreton

Clerk's salary Jan, Feb, March

L Online

2,252.30

Som Pension Fund Acc

(Arrears) 3 equal payments

Standing Order

1,324.82

Som Pension Fund Acc

(Arrears) 3 equal payments

Standing Order

1,324.82

Som Pension Fund Acc

(Arrears) 3 equal payments

Standing Order

1,324.82

Clarke Wilmott Sols

General Employment advice Inv No 969527

L Online

2,496.00

CSM Village Hall

Nov Lettings [invoice 578]

L Online

78.00

Lloyds Bank

Charges (10th Dec to 9th Jan 2022)

LDD

7.00

Payments already approved to pay on receipt of invoices;

Those on the Annually approved list of routine payments [see minute 19/216 (7i)] as listed overleaf.

Recruitment of New Clerk/Locum Costs As delegated to Personnel Sub.

Rec Park Improvement Work Ground Works budget

CYP Items funded by Flower Show £250/Remainder of PCs Grant £70/SCC Grant £500

Grant 4 Neighbourhood Watch Signs for Ham Village (and further 4 Ham Road funded by WW) £120


Income since last meeting

Detail


Amount

SW Lottery

Proceeds

L Online

£10

PIP



Nil


Steve Altria

Finance Support to CSM PC 11th February 2022