PARISHES OF WEST TYTHERLEY & FRENCHMOOR

ANNUAL PARISH MEETING

Minutes of the combined Annual Meetings of the two Parishes held on 8 May 2006 at 1945h in King Edward’s Hall, West Tytherley.

1. Present: Mr A.Bowditch (Chairman) plus six Councillors of the Grouped Parishes plus the Clerk and Councillors M.Woodhall (HCC) and N.Whiteley (TVBC) and 37 members of the public.

2. Apologies None

3. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on 9 May 2005

These were signed by the Chairman at the monthly meeting of the Council held on 13 June 2005.

4. Report from HCC (Mr M.Woodhall)

Mr Woodhall said that HCC’s budget for 2006-2007 was £1.64 bn (up from £1.4 bn the previous year) and he highlighted some of the areas where this money is being spent, including the disabled, where there was a need for specialist teachers for children in schools, libraries, nursing homes and roads. The Council was still buying land following earlier policy decisions. Five million tonnes of inert waste were produced in the county each year. Three waste disposal plants were operating 24 hours per day. Road casualties were being lowered, the main victims were under 24 years of age and in many accidents there was a drug or alcohol factor. There were still anti-social behaviour problems with vandalism in playgrounds and schools. Hampshire was a predominantly rural county with 80 per cent of its area classed as countryside. In response to a question from Mr Cockman concerning waste of money Mr Woodhall defended the initiative of TVBC to install kerbing and a cycle track on the A3067. Mr Whitlock complained of the Highways department’s neglect of the ditches at Stony Batter, and the condition of the road up to Strides farm. Mr Roberts-Spears drew attention to the chronic problem of flooding on the road past Queenwood Farm. Mr Woodhall said there were legal problems with this but the Surveyor was looking into it.

5. Report from TVBC (Mr N.Whiteley)

Mr Whitely, referring to the council tax, said only nine per cent of this was taken by TVBC, while 91 per cent went to HCC, the police and to the parishes. Band D equivalent increase was just £4.77 per year this year. Of the expenditure shown in TVBC’s newsletter an additional £45 million needed further explanation. Council tax benefits accounted for £20 million, £16 million was spent on adminstration and £4 million on corporate and democratic services. The council’s income from a number of different sources totals £52 million, which is exceeded by expenditure by £11.3 million. The balance of income is made up of the government support grant, the business rate and the council tax. There were few properties in the borough in council tax bands lower than Band D. Council employee numbers were fairly stable, totalling 545 this year. The council was having to take on new responsibilities all the time, including, recently, licensing, ASBOs, provision of cycle-ways, including that at Michelmersh where £135000 had been spent on granite kerbing for a cycle-way used by very few people.

The borough local plan should be published in September. The main development areas would be located in Romsey and Andover, with little new housing in the rural areas. However if local communities wanted social housing, applications would be looked at sympathetically. The Planning Department has additional funds for the conservation programme and all the conservation areas will be reassessed over the next three years. West Tytherley is no. 25 on the list. In response to a question from Mrs King as to why this was being done, Mrs Winter (Head of Planning Services) said it was to check the appropriateness of conservation area boundaries. The council empties the equivalent of 4 million dustbins each year. The alternative bin collection scheme will be introduced in December. There is some scepticism that it will really save money as intended. Recycling in 2004-05 increased by 20 per cent, the increase in the following year was more modest, and the target for the current year is a 30 per cent increase.

In response to a question from Mr Whitlock, Mr Whiteley said that post the Nolan report it had not been possible for Councillors on the planning committees to act either for the applicants or the objectors, they had to make up their own minds after hearing the evidence in committee. Mr Whiteley referred to the new system for rail cards and bus passes which put rural dwellers at a disadvantage. He stressed that the railway companies would continue to take tokens, at least for another two years. Mrs Guy pointed out that bus passes can be used by village care groups which can recoup costs. She was concerned that many of the tokens previously issued would remain unused.

6. OPEN FORUM

Members of the public were invited by the Chairman to raise any other issues they wished that had not been already covered in questions to Councillors Woodhall and Whiteley. Mr Lucas raised the problem of the toilets in the pavilion – the Chairman said the football club were responsible for repairing these. Peter Robinson gave a brief account of the Neighbourhood Watch, which now had, in Peter Noyce, a representative from Frenchmoor. Mrs Guy spoke of the work of the village care group and asked for more volunteers, especially for daytime driving.

7. Mrs Maddie Winter “Villages 2026”

Mrs Winter, Head of Planning Services at Test Valley Borough Council then gave a power point presentation on planning policy for Test Valley villages over the next 20 years and how this might change and develop. A copy of her presentation is annexed to these minutes. At the end of her talk she took questions from the floor. Mr Whitlock referred to the situation in Stony Batter where there was a preponderance of pensioners and vacant sites not being developed. It appeared that in granting planning permissions preferment was being given to equestrian-related proposals. Mrs Winter said that in future it was likely to be a matter of what the community wants – currently

policy constraints were causing the planners problems and were creating divided communities.

Mr Koetser wanted planning policy to encourage more people with young families to settle in the village. Mrs Winter said that concentration on affordable housing did not address the needs of middle-income families who did not qualify for low cost housing and could not afford the four to five bedroom houses favoured by developers. Even if smaller houses were built, or came on the market, it was not long before applications were made to expand them. One solution might be to give preference to terraced houses which could not be expanded. Mr Guy questioned how feasible it was to maintain a mix of housing stock, to which Mrs Winter said this could only be done by controlling house size and it was for local communities to demonstrate need as a bulwark against developers. Dr Parrott observed that Pragnells Cottages had met the needs of older people, while Beales Court had done the same for young families, but nothing similar had been built since these.

Mr Roberts-Spears thought that the outcome of housing needs surveys restricted housing proposals to the affordable end of the spectrum. Mrs Winter said that new policies would allow the remainder of this spectrum to be considered. Current policies were not serving the needs of villages and there was now an opportunity to change these policies. The brown-line policy, restricting development to infill, was not sustainable. But she noted that under the SE Plan we did not have to put new houses in the villages. Commenting on the issue of the village design statement versus the parish plan Mrs Winter said it was up to the residents to decide what best suited the community. Mr Guy asked what the future of exception sites was likely to be. Mrs Winter said this policy was likely to continue, as the planners did not want people in need to be ignored. Mr Guy referred to the community planning gain issue; Mrs Winter said they would be happy with thirty per cent affordable, but the inspectors recommended fifty per cent. Mrs Winter said she would like an input from the parishes in the response to the SE Plan consultation.

The Chairman raised the question of the traffic that would be generated by the development of the Dean Hill site under the new owner. Mrs Winter said that applications for the change of use of buildings on the site would only be approved if they did not generate more traffic than had been the case when MOD occupied the site. With regard to the bunkers, long-term storage was the favoured option, as the nature of the access tunnels, which were very narrow, did not facilitate rapid turnover of stock. Planners were considering putting conditions on their use. Mr Grantham-Wright emphasised the suitability of the bunkers for the long-term storage of low-level radioactive waste, such as is generated by hospitals.

There being no other business the Chairman then closed the Annual Parish Meeting with an expression of thanks to Mrs Winter for her interesting and thought-provoking talk, and invited those present, after a break for refreshments, to stay on for the monthly meeting of the Parish Council which would follow shortly.

A.Bowditch (Chairman) Date