Gerrans Parish Council Minutes Extra Meeting – September 2014

Gerrans Parish Council

MINUTES of the Meeting of Gerrans Parish Council

held on Wednesday 10th September 2014

in the Memorial Hall Annexe

NEXT MEETING – Tuesday 7th October at 7.30pm in the Memorial Hall Annexe

Present:

Cllrs German, Hatwood, Hetherington, Iddison, Meek, Morse, Symons, Taffinder ( Chairman);

S Skull (Clerk)

Also in attendance: Mr John Adams, Secretary of the Roseland Neighbourhood Development Plan (RNDP) Steering Group (SG)

 

10091401

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Cllrs Case, Edwards and Greenslade.

 

10091402

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS IN ITEMS ON THE AGENDA

– None

 

10091403

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

– None

 

10091404

ROSELAND NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN

–   To consider the Consultation Draft of the Roseland Plan and to seek to agree a formal response      

from the Parish Council.

 

Cllr Hetherington (Deputy Chairman of the Parish Council (PC) and Chairman of the Planning Committee) opened by saying that the question before the meeting was whether the PC could arrive at a consensus opinion, or whether the matter was best left to individual Councillors to make their own responses. It was important because the next stage was for the plan to go to examination and then a referendum.

 

He said he thought the process by which the current draft had been arrived at was clearly set out, there had been consultations all the way and public responses had been taken into account.

 

Mr Adams said that the SG’s planning advisors had been in favour of removing pages 1-20, which contain the background narrative, but the SG wanted them to remain as it felt this was essential for people to understand the issues involved and the process.

 

Cllr Hetherington said he thought that the meeting should concentrate on the policies as laid out in the document and this was generally agreed.

 

On the Policies for Future development, Councillors commented that the design guide will be a helpful reference point, that there was enough flexibility for truly local decision making property by property, that as a guide it was not too strict and reintroduced the concept of common sense.

 

Councillors asked how much weight the Plan would carry with Cornwall Council and whether it would have the power to stop random development. Mr Adams replied that the Plan would be “bolted on” to the Cornwall Local Plan so both documents would have to be considered in deciding planning applications. If passed at a referendum it will have full weight with planning officers.

 

There was a discussion as to a meaningful definition of “affordable housing” in the context of the low average wage on the Roseland. Mr Adams said that in the rental field, affordable rents were set at a percentage of market rents area by area, but there was agreement that the term was more problematic in the property ownership context. Also the criteria by which people were deemed to have “local” connections were difficult to agree but the Plan provided a good starting point, being so largely based on community input.

 

The other policies were discussed and broadly welcomed, and on “carbon reduction/energy efficiency” Mr Adams commented that other AONB’s had height restrictions on wind turbines and a ban on turbines in the “immediate hinterland” of the coast – defined as 5 miles inland. This could well rule out all wind turbines on the Roseland. He said the SG would have a subsequent programme regarding renewable energy.

 

Cllr Hatwood said his previous concerns about a perceived lack of engagement with businesses had been resolved and communication was now active. He accepted the problem had not been the fault of the SG and offered his thanks to the SG and all who had worked so hard to produce the Plan. This was generally endorsed and Cllr German emphasised in particular the outstanding contribution of Mr Adams himself.

 

Cllr Hetherington proposed (seconded by Cllr German) that the PC should make a formal response to the consultation stating that it welcomed the plan and was supportive of its aims. This response to be qualified in just 2 areas:

  1. Section H – Policies for Future Development  –  Policy H05 Exception Sites – paragraph (1)

The removal of the individual references to Bohortha, Trewithian and Rosevine is requested.

  1. Outreach

 

The PC proposes that in future, as the Plan continues to be reviewed and more consultations held, more effort could be made to increase the use of digital media in addition to paper communications as a way of engaging a broader demographic, and in particular the younger generation.

The response should also express the PC’s appreciation of the hard work, skill and dedication of all those involved in the development of the Plan to date.

The proposal was carried unanimously.

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 8.53 pm

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*