Parish Council
White Colne
Parish Council
White Colne
Parish Council
White Colne
Parish Council
WHITE COLNE PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of the Parish Council Meeting held at
The Village Hall, Bures Road, White Colne
on Friday 13th February 2009 at 6.30 pm.
Present : Cllr S Adlem, Cllr J Brace, Cllr K Nolan (Chairman), Cllr J Watt
Also Present: Clerk D Williams and 2 members of the public attended.
27. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -
28. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS – None
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
The meeting was suspended for questions and statements.
(i)Referring to the planning application at Fox and Pheasant Centre, do we know the views of Braintree District Council?
(ii)I have concerns with highways issues and from a risk point of view mixing heavy lorries and personal vehicles including children does not make sense. Anything that slows up traffic on that road is a hazard.
(iii)I would not like to see any more rubbish in that area, I am concerned about the potential additional litter.
The meeting was resumed.
29. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RAISED AT PUBLIC QUESTION TIME.
Cllr Nolan said that we do not know the views of Braintree District Council regarding the planning application. We have some individual views.
30. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(a) 09/00063/FUL – Fox and Pheasant Centre, Colchester Road, White Colne – change of use of Unit A from A1 (retail) to A3 (restaurant/cafe) with the ancillary use as a shop and takeaway service.
Cllr Nolan read out a letter dated 13th February from the proposed proprietor. He also said that letters of support had been received from Chappel residents, and that letters from White Colne residents had also been received, some supporting with reservations, and some objecting.
A detailed discussion followed. Members expressed concern with highways safety, car
parking, noise and smells, and that the supporting statement is incorrect as residential
properties are nearby. Concerns were expressed with the sewerage system as the property
is served by a cesspit, and also Historic Buildings Conservation have not taken account
of the Environmental Services requirement of external ducting. All members agreed
that the parish council should object on planning grounds, and the following reply
was agreed:-
The parish council objects to this planning application for the following reasons:-
1. We are concerned with highways safety in the area, there is poor visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the property and also for speeding traffic along Colchester Road which will need to slow down quickly. The immediate area is a known incident area with specific incidents in recent weeks including one damaging the 'Welcome to Braintree' sign.
2. We do not believe that the parking provision for a 40 seater cafe/restaurant is
adequate. The suggestion that use of a busy HGV haulage yard could be used as sensible
alternative parking for family cars does not appear to be suitable particularly as
the HGV haulage yard has historically been full at the weekends. This appears to
be contrary to RLP 111, numbers 1-
3.We are concerned with other polution and traffic generation and do not support the potential proprietor's statement that it is 'situated at a sufficent distance from residential properties not to cause noise disturbance or traffic impact’. This appears to be contrary to RLP 36.
4. We note that Environmental Services have commented on this application. However we are concerned that they do not appear to have taken into consideration the effect of this property on the existing cesspit which discharges into the local waterways, an issue that is already important in the White Colne area given the history of flooding.
5. We note that Historic Buildings Conservation are not objecting to the alterations in their letter dated 6th February 2009, on the basis that the only external changes are to a modern door and window. They therefore may not have taken into consideration the Environmental Services requirement dated 10th February 2009 for a scheme of ductwork terminating at least 1 metre above the ridge level.
We consider that there are more suitable sites for this type of business in the locality.
There being no further business the parish council meeting was closed at 7.15 pm.
WHITE COLNE PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of the Parish Council Meeting held at
The Village Hall, Bures Road, White Colne on Monday 24th August 2009 at 7.30 pm.
Present :Cllr S Adlem, Cllr K Nolan(Chairman), Cllr C Pearcey,
Also Present: Clerk D Williams, District Cllr G Spray and 3 members of the public attended.
87. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -
88. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS – None
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
The meeting was suspended for questions and statements.
(i)Referring to the two planning applications at the Airfield, Earls Colne, what areas does the Air Ambulance cover?
(ii) How many flights a day are expected?
(iii)Is it important how many times the helicopter takes off when it saves peoples’ lives?
(iv) I am surprised that there are not a lot of public here.
(v) District Cllr Spray said that she has had more correspondence about these planning applications than any other. People are either strongly for or strongly against the application.
The meeting was resumed.
89. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RAISED AT PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
(i)&(ii) Cllr Nolan said that the meeting is not to answer questions for Essex Air Ambulance but to gauge the feelings of White Colne parishioners.
(iv) Essex Air Ambulance made a presentation at the Annual Electors Meeting earlier this year when there were a number of parishioners present.
90. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
09/00547/FUL Land at the Airfield, Earls Colne -
of new car park area and new aircraft hardstanding
09/00548/FUL Proposed Essex Air Ambulance HQ, The Airfield, Earls Colne -
aircraft hangars to one aircraft hangar and adjoining offices (B1) with designated helipad.
There was considerable discussion regarding these two planning applications. Cllr Nolan said that parish councillors had received no comment from any parishioner against the applications, with some supporting and some having no views. There had been no feedback following the recent test flights.
The meeting was suspended again for further questions and statements.
(i)District Cllr Spray said that the Planning Committee will consider this application strictly on planning grounds.
(ii)It is difficult to separate planning grounds from the emotive issue of the Air Ambulance. Two out of three public support the application.
The meeting was resumed.
Cllr Adlem said that there are planning issues such as development in the countryside although we support Air Ambulance. Cllr Pearcey also said this. After further discussion Cllr Nolan proposed that the parish council support both applications and leave the District Planning Committee to deal with planning issues with what is a complex application. This was seconded by Cllr Pearcey and voted 2 in favour, 1 against.
91. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Cllr Adlem referred to the pilot scheme in other districts of turning street lights off at midnight, and to the consultation made to the parishioners of White Colne. She said that most people who responded are supportive of lights being turned off at midnight and it was agreed that the clerk replies accordingly.
Cllr Nolan said that the hedging to the front of 52/54 Colchester Road has been removed, and this was a condition of the planning approval for the development. It was agreed that the clerk advises the Planning Department of Braintree District Council (BDC) accordingly.
Cllr Nolan said that the internal auditor’s report for the six years 2003/4/5/6/7/8 had been circulated to members and this was an agenda item at the next meeting. He said that the internal auditor has said that he would not charge a fee and asked that it is donated to a local charity. Cllr Nolan proposed that the payment of £300 to the 50 club be considered at the next meeting.
Cllr Adlem said that she had been advised of a new gypsy and travellers’ site in Bures, and the clerk was asked to investigate and circulate details to members.
Cllr Adlem proposed that the clerk signs the contractor’s license with BDC regarding the electronic map requested for the Village Design Group. This was seconded by Cllr Pearcey and agreed.
There being no further business the parish council meeting was closed at 8.30 pm.
Chairperson…………………………………………………. Date……………………………………….
WHITE COLNE PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of the Meeting of the Parish Council held at The Village Hall, Bures Road, White Colne
on Friday 23rd October 2009 at 7.30 pm.
Present : Cllr S Adlem, Cllr C Pearcey, Cllr J Taylor, Cllr J Watt
Also Present: 6 members of the public attended.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE – Cll K Nolan, Cllr M Abrahams, Clerk D Williams
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
None
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
The minutes of the previous meeting will be agreed at the next scheduled meeting of the Parish Council on 16th November 2009.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
The meeting was suspended for questions and statements.
Regarding the planning application for 41 Colchester Road:-
· The Application for Planning Permission (ITEM 15) states the house is vacant and has been for 2 years. This is not the case.
· A single terrace is more sympathetic to the existing character of this part of
the village however they do not look like a Victorian terrace (as stated in the appn)
but have the appearance of ‘housing association’ properties -
· NB VDS questionnaire asked the question:
The Conservation Area should be extended along Colchester Road eastwards from Bures Road
As far as the entrance to Chalkney House – pro 80 against 45
To cover entire village envelope – pro 132 against 54
· At the appeal for the last planning appns the Inspector mentioned the fact that “the Parish Council indicated they were in the process of producing a VDS to back up a previous request to the District Council to extend Conservation Area boundary as far as Chalkney House which would include the appeal site. While the Conservation Area boundary has not been extended to include the appeal site and this might not come about in the future, she concluded that the PC and many local residents consider this possible additional area to possess some special characteristics. This is in addition to the Councils view that the presence of the more spacious plots provides some relief from the more intensive built form further to the west.”
· Houses are unattractive and need to be individualised. Properties in that area differ in design and any development should take that into account and each property should be individualised in style, materials and components. New build should be in character and such a development should blend in with the street scene. The three new houses opposite 41 have already had a detrimental affect on the street scene as they overshadow surrounding cottages and houses.
· Planning Inspector at Appeal dismissed the last two appns because the developments would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area.
· The site is not big enough for five houses and will be cramped and overpowering. From Colchester Road the terrace will present a large built form which is out of scale with neighbouring properties and will dominate the street scene. Only room for 5 wheelie bins, not 10.
· Road safety – 10 vehicles accessing the properties along this busy stretch of road in addition to utility vehicles, although there appears little space for them (utility) to manoeuvre.
· Parking: only space for 2 cars per property and little room for utility vehicles. Inevitable that guests, deliveries, etc will use the private road at the back of the site. Can a planning condition be made that vehicle access must only be via Colchester Road and that private lane to the North should not be used for deliveries, access or parking?
· The porches on the proposed terrace would be more in keeping with adjacent cottages and most other properties in the vicinity if they presented a gable to the front, rather than sloping towards the properties as shown.
· There was concern regarding the position of one of the parking bays into the existing hedge. The concern was that this would encourage use of the rear private drive.
· The relationship of the height of the proposed properties in relation to the adjacent terrace was raised as a concern as this is not clear from the application.
The meeting was resumed.
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RAISED AT PUBLIC QUESTION TIME.
To be considered under the application below.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(a) 09/01174/LBC 2 Colchester Road -
replacement with new reinforced concrete raft and piled foundations. Removal and
replacement of existing brick chimney from ground level up.
Cllr Watt advised that he had spoken to neighbours who had not expressed any concerns. Details had been circulated to Councillors and there had been no comments.
The application was approved subject to neighbours views.
09/01288/OUT 41 Colchester Road -
five houses with associated parking and amenity area, form private drive, and new
vehicular access onto Colchester Road
All Cllrs agreed with the concerns raised by members of the public, many who were neighbours of the proposed development.
Cllr Taylor read a letter sent to her stating that the development was out of keeping with the character of the village.
Cllr Watt expressed concern over what appeared to be very tall chimneys which were out of character. Also that the current policy of a maximum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling was likely to change soon to a minimum of 2 per dwelling. It was suggested that more than 2 per dwelling should be suggested due to the lack of alternative parking especially for guests.
The current property to be demolished had a right of pedestrian access to the rear private drive. Two pedestrian gates were shown on the proposed plans and this was queried.
Cllr Adlem made the point that in the recent VDS 145 out of 182 who answered the question said that they preferred first time buyer housing. This was second only to family housing (146 out of 180). It was agreed that the type of the proposed development was a definite step in the right direction. The idea of a ‘Victorian terrace’ was also preferable to the previous style.
Cllr Watt proposed that we object to the outline application on the basis of the density of the development. It was felt that due to the proximity of the site to the Conservation area that the 30/hectare density was not necessarily applicable. Also that the design as detailed in the application was not in keeping with the street scene; nor does it address all of the concerns of the planning inspectors refusal of the development from the previous application for the site. This proposal was carried unanimously.
Cllr Adlem to draft a response and circulate by email for formal response to BDC by 2nd November.
09/01280/FUL 7 Colne Park Road – Erection of detached four bed bungalow with detached garage
Cllr Adlem observed that the application was for a property having a larger footprint than the previously approved application. The property was also two storey. Having said that the design seemed to have been well thought out and the front elevation it was felt would compliament the street scene.
Cllr Watt was expressed concern that a double garage was mentioned in the application but not shown on the plans or elevations. It was felt that no garage should be allowed to the front of the property as this would not be in keeping with the street scene around the green as well as bringing the building line much further forward than the demolished property and thus detrimentally affecting the view up the green toward Yew Tree Farm. It was also suggested that any external lighting and the surface treatment of the driveway and any boundary treatment should be in keeping with a property in a Conservation area.
Cllr Pearcey proposed that we support the application and Cllr watt seconded. This was carried unanimously.
Cllr Adlem to draft response to be circulated and sent to BDC by 5th November.
09/00239/TPOCON – Tree Works, 25 Colchester Road.
It was noted that details of these proposed works had previously been circulated to Councillors and taking account of the tree wardens recommendations there had been no objections.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
Cllr Taylor said that she was very concerned that BDC would be considering a proposal to cease the Parish support grant as part of a plan to save £1.5 millon. This grant is worth £1,711 to White Colne per year. As our precept is
£9,788 this proposal would require the precept to be raised by 17% or there would need to be significant cuts in what the PC are able to provide to the village. The parish Support Grant has recognized that centrally provided services such as street cleaning & lighting and parks are not provided in the parishes. It was agreed that this should be added to the agenda of the Cluster meeting and that the Clerk should write and express our concern at this proposal.
Cllr Taylor also highlighted the public consultation meeting for the proposed overhead cables from Ipswich to Twinstead. There will be a meeting in Bures Community Hall on 26th November.
There being no further business the parish council meeting was closed at 8.18 pm.
Chairperson…………………………………………………. Date……………………………………….
White Colne
ARCHIVE
