Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Chandlers Ford Parish Council Special Meeting 19 Dec11

Chandlers Ford Parish Council Special Meeting 19 Dec11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 311 |Likes:
Published by stephenslominski
Chandlers Ford Parish Council Special Meeting 19 Dec11
Chandlers Ford Parish Council Special Meeting 19 Dec11

More info:

Published by: stephenslominski on Jan 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





CHANDLER’S FORD PARISH COUNCIL – SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING19 December 2011Hiltingbury Community Centre, Chandler’s Ford(6.30 pm – 8.50 pm)
PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Atkinson (Chairman); Councillors Bicknell, Boyes,Broadhurst, Bull, Cole, Davidovitz, Hosegood, Hughes, Pragnell, Roberts and Streeter Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Arnett, Mrs Gault, MsGrajewski and LuffmanIn attendance: Stephen Mursell Parish Clerk, Julia Norman Eastleigh Borough CouncilThere was one member of the public present.
Cllr Bull made a declaration of interest as he is known to the owner of the land atStoneham Park.
Members of the public present were made aware that they could address the meetingon any item on the agenda.
The Chairman introduced Julia Norman who agreed to set the scene for members onthe process leading to the Draft Local Plan being published. The Draft Local Plan setsout how much housing is needed in the Borough for the period 2011 to 2029 which isanticipated to be 9,400 homes in total of which 4,700 are scheduled to be built on greenfield sites comprising of 3 large sites.The Local Plan also considers employment opportunities mostly at Riverside and other minor sites. Major infrastucture improvements of road developments are also plannedfor at Botley. Hedge End and Chickenhall Link.The Chairman opened the meeting for any general questions on the process leading tothe Local Plan being published. Members requested information on the type of accommodation planned as some members felt that there was still a need for flats,however the Local Plan called for more larger properties.Members were advised that officers would consider all representations made during theconsultation phase and make any changes to the Draft Plan before publishing the final
Plan in the summer of 2012. Subject to full public examination the final revisions will beincorporated in to the Plan and then it will be adopted.The Chairman invited Cllr Davidovitz to advise members on the powers available to theParish Council now that the Localism Bill had received Royal Assent. Members wereadvised that the Parish Council will have the power to determine where developmentwould take place, together with the power to determine the character of thedeevlopment and the infrastructure requirements.
1. Parish Council overall views on the Draft Local Plan for the Borough:
Members were content with the overall number of new homes planned acrossthe Borough under the Draft Local Plan
Members were concerned about the impact on the overall infrastructure andservices that the building of the new homes would have, particularly regardingprovision of water supply together with schools and medical facilities. Concernswere expressed over the adequacy of all the existing services. It was noted thatimprovements were planned to the traffic infrastructure which were welcomed,but the concerns were that improvements to the infrastructure would be phasedin such a way that the construction of the homes would be well under way beforeany improvements to the traffic infrastructure are commenced. The ParishCouncil would wish to have re-assurance over these points.
2. CF1 - Land at former Ambulance Station and Fire Station, Steele Close:
Members had no issues with the proposals for re-development of this site asnoted in the Draft Local Plan
Members had concerns over the current access on to Oakmount Road wherecars exit on to standing traffic wishing to join the M3 junction. Furthedevelopment of this site would therefore increase the current road safetyconcerns and therefore traffic management surveys would be required
Members also noted that the area is prone to flooding and were concerned aboutthe nature of development to this site in a flood risk area and also that further development may increase the risk of flooding. Members would seek assurancein respect of the flooding risk
Members noted the proposals regarding the types of business that the site wouldattract and further employment opportunities were welcomed. However membersfelt that a car sales business would have a more significant impact on trafficissues than office premises would have and wished these concerns to be noted
Members also noted that there was a small development of dwellings here andthe environmental impact that different business usages would have on thoseresidents – Members felt that this small development of dwellings should beincluded in the overall development of the site
3. CF2 - Central Precinct:
Members had no issues with the proposals for re-development of this site asnoted in the Draft Local Plan and would welcome this re-development
Members understood the difficulty that any re-development would pose inrespect of the mix of freeholders and leaseholders on the site and the potentialcosts incurred in potential compulsory purchase if that arose
4. CF3 Land at Common Road:
Members had no issues with the proposals for re-development of this site asnoted in the Draft Local Plan
5. CF4 Transport Improvements:
Members were pleased to note that the highlighted improvements in the DraftLocal Plan represented the traffic hot spots as perceived my members -Members also requested that traffic issues around Chestnut Avenue also betaken into account within the Local Plan
6. CF5 Land at Stoneycroft Rise:
Members had concerns over the proposals but acknowledged that more detailswould follow
Members were concerned as to the additional traffic to the proposed site which isadjacent to FreeSpace and without further information were concerned about theproximity of any entry and exit to the proposed site at an area whereunsupervised children would congregate
Members were also concerned about the impact of additional traffic to this areawhere there is a busy car saleroom together with other businesses
7. E1 Land South of Chestnut Avenue:
Members recognised that this site would potentially have the most impact on theParish
Members commented on for the number of new homes planned and wonderedwhere the employment opportunities would be for the additional population
Members would wish the area to be seen as a self-supporting community inrespect of the local shops and services such as school and doctors surgery
Members also wished to comment that Nightingale Primary School is very closeto the site and would request that the future viability of the school is notcompromised by any plans to develop a school on the new development

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->