Minutes of Little Bealings
Parish Council meeting held at Bealings Village Hall at 7.45pm on Monday 8
September 2008
The meeting started 15 minutes late, due to Councillors hearing
representations from three parishioners about item 4.
Present: Mrs F Evans, Mr K Beaumont, Mr P Carr, Dr C Rowe and Mrs J Shaw
Also Present: Mr P Bellfield for part of the meeting
In attendance: Mrs C Ramsden, Clerk to the Council
|
|
|
Actions by Councillors |
|
|
1 |
Apologies and Declarations
of Interest Apologies were received from Miss D Williams and Mrs M Wilson Mrs J Shaw declared an interest in item 4 Gypsies. |
|
|
|
2 3 |
Minutes of the Meetings held
on 7 July and 13 August 2008 These were signed as a true record. Matters arising from the
Minutes Meeting of 7 July E-Communities Mrs Shaw had not yet investigated SALC’s e-communities initiative. Deposit of Council Records
at SRO The Chairman advised that, due to the amount of other business to consider, this item would be carried forward to the next meeting. Meeting of 13 August There were no matters arising from this meeting. |
JS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 5 6 7 8 |
Gypsies It was noted that on 20 August gypsies
had moved on to a field on the edge of the parish, adjacent to the bridge
over the A12 on Martlesham Road. The
land did not have planning permission for use as a site, but the gypsies had
been invited there by the landowner, with assistance from the County
Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer, Keren
Wright. They had previously occupied
land in the same ownership in Ipswich.
It had been agreed that a maximum of 6 caravans and 6 pulling vehicles
could occupy the site for a maximum of 28 days and that the landowner would
supply a portable toilet and skip. The
Chairman had visited the site and Mrs Shaw had initially been in regular
contact with neighbours, the police and Ms Wright. It was also noted that:
·
agreed to the service of
appropriate notices to secure the cessation of the use of the land as a site
·
served
Temporary Stop Notices on 5 September, to prevent further caravans from moving
to the site and to prevent the laying down of hardstanding
or other operational development. The notice could not stop six
caravans or other vehicles using the land for residential purposes. It
had taken effect immediately and would be in place until 3 October. ·
decided
that, if the caravans were still on the land on 30 September, it would serve
an Enforcement Notice and possibly a Stop Notice. The former would come
into effect 28 days later and the latter would take effect 3 days after
service. These would look to secure the cessation of the use of the
land as a site. ·
advised
that it needed to be mindful of human rights considerations in this case, as
two of the families did not have alternative accommodation elsewhere; the
remaining four families were able to return to houses in the Barnsley
area. It was noted that the two families wishing to stay in Suffolk had
applied for plots at West Meadow travellers’ site in Ipswich, for which there
was a waiting list.
The meeting was adjourned at 7.55pm in order that a parishioner could make further representations to Councillors. The meeting re-convened at 8.00pm. It was noted that the Parish
Council did not have powers to secure the removal of the travellers or to
prevent a recurrence of the situation, nor did it have sufficient reserves to
obtain independent legal advice on the powers available to SCDC and SCC to do
so. It was also noted that a complaint
to the Ombudsman was possible, alleging maladministration by SCC, but that this
would not resolve the matter in the short term. It was therefore RESOLVED:
·
facilitating the arrival of the
gypsies on to land in the parish without appropriate planning permission and
which was not suitable for use as a site ·
not liaising with or contacting
either the parish council or local residents beforehand
·
full details of its policies in
respect of relocating gypsies, including its criteria for what was considered
to be appropriate land, and to be informed as to whether it had acted in
accordance with policy in this instance ·
a statement that it agrees the
land in use is an inappropriate site for gypsies ·
an
assurance that it would not facilitate or support the use of the land by
these or any other gypsies or travellers at any time in the future. In view of the need for Mr Bellfield to attend other parish council meetings it was
agreed to alter the order of the agenda to deal with the Local Government
Review as the next item. Local Government Review Dr Rowe reported on the
Boundary Committee proposals. He
considered that the move to unitary authorities in Suffolk would remove the
‘checks and balances’ offered by the current two tiers of district and county
councils, and would be costly. He
pointed out that neither of the Committee’s proposals reflected those
previously preferred by the parish council.
However, in view of the rural nature of the parish, the better of the
two Committee proposals was a ‘one suffolk’
authority as this would have to accommodate the needs of many small rural
communities like Little Bealings.
Including the parish in a North Haven authority would not best serve
our community as the focus would be more on the needs of the ports and urban
communities. Mrs Shaw had contacted the
Boundary Committee and it had advised that the inclusion of the parish in the
North Haven authority was due to the location of the A12; the Committee
considered it important that one authority was responsible for both sides of
the A12 and that it did not swop from one authority
to another along its length. Thus the Committee’s
proposals for the new boundaries meant that the short section in Little
Bealings would be managed entirely by North Haven. It was noted that the Committee
saw the creation of Community Boards to ensure there was local
representation, but there was no information on how they would evolve. Their development would be the
responsibility of the new councils, although local empowerment was a
requirement of the review. It was noted that the new
councils also had to show that they would be affordable, although no figures
had yet been released for either of the Committee’s proposals. No figures would be available until shortly
before the deadline for comments, 26 September. The short time for comment and the speed of
the review was noted. The Chairman reported that she
had attended various meetings to consider the Committee’s proposals - held by
SCC, SCDC, the Fringe Parishes and SALC.
She would also attend the Fringe Parishes meeting to be held on 9
September. The meeting held in the
village on 4 September, arranged with Great Bealings and Playford, had been
well attended by residents, with presentations from Clifford Smith (a former
SCC CEO), SCDC, SCC and IBC. Residents
had expressed concerned at the inclusion of the parishes in the more urban
North Haven, especially the implications for cost and development. It was RESOLVED: ·
to advise the Boundary Committee
that: ·
Little Bealings is a small rural
community which does not look to Ipswich, some seven miles away, for most of
its services. Many residents are
elderly and many residents visit Woodbridge, only three miles away, for
shopping and leisure activities. ·
Little Bealings is currently
working with the adjoining parishes of Great Bealings and Playford in the
development of a Parish Plan, which reflects the close knit nature of the
local rural communities. The parish
also has more in common with the rural communities of Henley, Westerfield and Tuddenham than
it does with the urban centres of Ipswich, Kesgrave
or Martlesham. ·
the
Parish Council does not consider that the Committee’s decision to include
Little Bealings in the North Haven authority to facilitate management of the
A12 is either justifiable or necessary.
It is unjustifiable as it is not a decision based on any factor which
considers the best interests of the parish itself or takes into account the
community’s needs. It is unnecessary
as it is not proven that the management of the A12 cannot be as efficiently managed
without the inclusion of Little Bealings in North Haven. ·
in view
of the above, the Parish Council supports the creation of a unitary government
structure which would provide the most rural option for the parish. Of the Committee’s proposals this means one
unitary authority for the whole of Suffolk.
This authority would have a large number of rural communities
comparable to Little Bealings and would therefore better understand and serve
the needs of our parish. ·
if the
Boundary Committee is determined upon the creation of two unitary authorities
for Suffolk, the parish council is strongly of the view that the boundary
between the two authorities should be amended so that Little Bealings is a
part of the Suffolk authority and not a part of North Haven as currently
proposed. ·
The proposed Community Boards
are welcomed, assuming that they do evolve as envisaged by the Committee. A survey from SALC seeking views on the Boundary Committee proposals was completed. It was also RESOLVED: · to inform Gt Bealings and Playford Parish Councils of the Council’s views. Police The Chairman reported that
information from the SNT reported one crime since the parish council meeting
on 7 July. This was a burglary from an
outbuilding where a set of golf clubs were stolen. There are no suspects at the current
time. Previous advice on shutting
windows, the use of outside lighting and timers, shed alarms and the removal
of valuables from parked cars had been repeated. There was also advice on closing gates,
lighting and securing oil tanks as fuel theft was increasing. Details of the new structure of
the SNT had been circulated to Councillors.
It was noted that the next meeting of the SNT which now included the
parish would be at 10.30am on 3 October in Kesgrave
Town Hall. Miss Williams would attend. It was noted that the report
did not refer either to the gypsies or to an incident involving orange
fencing being fixed across The Street.
It was RESOLVED to ask the SNT: ·
why these events were not
included in the report ·
why a
representative of the police had not attended the parish meeting as agreed
with Mrs Shaw and the Clerk. Highways SORR Mr Carr reported that no SORR
meeting had been held. Traffic Management in the
Area It was noted that Playford Road
was closed for works, although no notification had been received by the
parish council. There was no update
from SCC in respect of the resolution of the flooding on Martlesham Road or
the resurfacing works. Footpaths Mrs Shaw had not been able to
obtain any further assistance from SCC concerning the surface of the verge
opposite Brimar.
It was RESOLVED: ·
to
write to SCC’s East Area office about the matter. It was noted that Mr Ball was
continuing to cut footpaths where an extra cut was needed due to the wet
weather and had provided an update on cost to date. Maintenance A dangerous tree between the
level crossing and the Hall Road cross roads had been reported to SCC. Planning It was noted that illness had prevented Mrs Shaw attending the SCDC LDF
meeting about Strategic Housing Growth on 28 July. It was noted that Mrs Shaw had completed and returned SCDC’s Outdoor
Play Space Schedule for the parish. A new Planning Policy Statement 12:
Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities through Local Spatial
Planning had been circulated to Councillors.
One of the revisions concerned the opportunity for parish planning to
be more influential in the planning process, with Local Planning Authorities
(ie SCDC) urged to pay close attention to the
content of parish and community plans.
However, it was stressed that the preparation of a parish plan must
involve the LPA from the outset and work with it on the process to be effective. It was noted that SCDC had not responded to
the JPPSG’s initial approach for involvement in the
parish plan. It was RESOLVED to: ·
support the JPPSG’s
further approach to SCDC for input and to urge it to continue to seek SCDC’s
involvement. Applications TPO 58, 1993: Pine Hills,
Playford Road: Pruning of Lower
Bough back to Trunk of Oak Tree. Dr Rowe declared an interest in this item. It was noted that SCDC had granted consent.
|
FE DW |
|
|
9 |
Finance Income and Expenditure The Chairman reported the following income and expenditure: Income: Nil Expenditure: Cheques were signed as follows, although payment of some would await receipt of the precept on 30 September: ·
Phil Holmes – one third share of
printing of flier for Local Government Review Open Meeting: £5 ·
Suffolk ACRE Services –
Insurance policy premium: £223.36 ·
Suffolk Preservation Society
membership and training as agreed at the parish council meeting on 7
July: £105 ·
Local Councils Update –
subscription fee as agreed at the parish council meeting on 7 July: £65 |
|
|
|
10 |
Matters Arising from Circulated Items Circulations 2008/06 and 07 had been returned to the Clerk. Consultations
from SCC on Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options Document and “Call for
Sites” and Sustainability Appraisal, and from the Suffolk Coastal Local
Strategic Partnership on a Draft Strategy Review were noted. |
|
|
|
11 |
Correspondence It was RESOLVED: · that the following correspondence would be circulated to Councillors: ·
SALC mailing. The Chairman and
Mr Carr would attend the Area Committee meeting on 15 September and the
Chairman would attend the AGM on 21 October. · Clerks and Councils Direct for September 2008 ·
Rural Housing Trust Newsletter |
|
|
|
12 |
Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Council
would be on 10 November 2008. |
|
|
There being no further business to discuss the meeting closed at 9.25pm.