Press "Enter" to skip to content

CNP Team Minutes 26th Feb 2019

Tuesday, 26 February 2019

Charfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) Meeting

Sportsman’s Lounge 19:30 to 21:10 (actions in Bold)

  • –  Attendance• Marcus Whawell – Chair
    • Mark Rosher – Scribe
    • John O’Neill – Ward Member
    • David Lines
    • Steve Drinkwater
    • Judy Drinkwater
    • Ian Kershaw
  • –  Apologies
    • John Gregory
    • Maurice and Ruth Buch
    • Mark and Suzie Smyth-Roberts• Laurence Parsons
  • –  Marcus took the chair for the meeting
  • –  The meeting considered the latest draft 0.6 of the CNP and offered their appreciation particularly to Laurence who has done a sterling piece of work getting it into this shape.
  • –  Marcus compared it with other NPs including Cheddar’s and noted the latter had identified green space and development areas. He felt the current draft was coherent but wondered if an external agency would be useful to check over the draft before it was made public.
  • –  Marcus asked about the available budget and whether the group had sufficient funds for such an external auditor. Mark as Chair of Parish Council (PC) stated there was still an amount available from national funds and also some from PC earmarked funds. Mark would clarify the amounts to the group post meeting.
  • –  Mark agreed to contact Dick Whittington of West of England Rural Networks (WERN), who was involved in the early days of CNP, if he was aware of any potential CNP auditors. He would also send the latest draft for info. (done)
  • –  Judy spoke about Community Build Orders (CBO) and asked if there should be a place for them in the CNP. Mark agreed to circulate information about CBOs andJudy agreed to draft a brief about a possible CNP policy. (done)
  • –  The meeting discussed the odd position the group was in, preparing a Plan while the village was in a dual state, depending on whether the Joint Spatial plan (JSP) and Charfield as Strategic Development Location (SDL) were adopted or not. Was it possible to develop a plan that incorporated both scenarios.
    • Potentially the policies covered both scenarios but a putative Development Boundary could be identified for both an infrastructure bolstered future (JSP adopted, Charfield as SDL) and for a status quo future (JSP fails, Charfield is not expanded as a SDL).
    • John noted that applications in Cromhall had been refused because they lay outside the Development Boundary• Action on all to draw up potential Development Boundaries under both scenarios, to present for discussion next meeting.
  • –  John went over the current JSP progress, expecting public examination in May, but noted that the current Transport Plan appears to make no real improvements for Charfield and does not address the matter of car ownership in the village. It may prove to the JSP be unsustainable because the intended mitigation still results in increased traffic and carbon use. If the SDLs fail due to lack of carbon sustainability then the JSP will fail.
  • –  Marcus noted the station was proposed to reopen in 2024 by which time most of the houses proposed for Charfield in the JSP would have been built and people already commuting via cars.
  • –  The meeting discussed the options for speed cameras and Mark noted that these would be privately funded (ie PC or JSP funded) and they would only produce warning letters not penalties, although the letters may have implications for insurance and for assisting prosecutions in the event of accidents.
  • –  The meeting discussed Construction Environment Management Plans (CEMP) and noted the good work carried out by David in preparing the CEMP in the CNP. Mark noted the draft CNP CEMP had been used my the PC in supporting comments on current planning applications including Fews’ and Barratts. It was noted that today a significantly dangerous loading activity was carried out outside the Barratts site, and that the current CEMP did not adequately control such activities. David agreed to review the CEMP policies and make appropriate changes to cover them.
  • –  Marcus noted the sustainability appraisal of the draft South Gloucestershire Local Plan (SGLP) and agreed to carry out a similar appraisal of the CNP.
  • –  Ian spoke about a potential effective bypass which might incorporate traffic access to the CEG site rather than the perceived dangerous access point on Charfield Hill. He identified a route via the Tafarn Bach roundabout crossing Churchend Road and across to Hill House Farm using a bridge to cross the railway at Little Bristol Lane. It was noted that this would impact Churchend but also assist a safe cycle route around the village. It would also make development at Hill House Farm more achievable and this might “sell” the idea to developers. It was argued that if 1200+ houses were to be built then another hundred for the sake of a safe road system might be seen as optimal. Ian will draw up his proposal for the next meeting to consider.
  • –  John noted that at the recent developers meeting CEG had suggested they might not provide any additional sports provision, and that he and SG planners had stated categorically that the lack of such would make the proposals unworkable. He noted if SDL is adopted improvement works should also be assessed and carried out by developers at the existing hall and playing field. He stated there would need to be provision of health services in the village and also that both primary and secondary school places assured, particularly as our current provision may be redacted as Stroud District expands its own population, otherwise the proposals for an expanded Charfield were unsustainable.
  • –  The meeting discussed community engagement and agreed to host an information and Q&A meeting in late spring. The publication date for the spring Charfield Newsletter was considered as this would be the primary means of advertising the event. The lack of available dates for the Hall was also noted, and discussions ensued about the serious need for additional community meeting places (community hub) in any expanded Charfield. A date of Monday 10th June (19:30 to 22:00) was agreed and found to be available. Mark to book. (Booked, confirmed)
  • –  The next meeting was agreed to be Tuesday 2nd April at 19:30 in the Sportsman’s Lounge. Mark to book. (Booked, confirmed)
  • –  Meeting ended 21:10.


Comments are closed.