Minutes of the Parish Council Meeting held in Sibford Gower Endowed Primary School on Tuesday, 6th September 2016

Present
Parish Cllrs Mrs Susan Bannister, Oswyn Murray (Chairman) and Alan Parkin, ten Local Residents and the Clerk (Peter Hardman).

Apologies
Apologies were received from Cllrs Peter Abbott and Mrs Gilian Soden.

Minutes of the previous Meeting
Proposed by Cllr Alan Parkin and seconded by Cllr Susan Bannister, the Minutes of the Annual Parish Council Meeting on 16th May 2016 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

Matters arising
Data Protection Act: The chairman reported on08:55 21/09/2016 a recent complaint under the Freedom of Information Act, which had also to be dealt with under the data protection legislation. Whereas in the past, emails for the Parish Council have been routed via the Clerk’s personal email address, it was resolved to open an email address specifically for Parish Council matters. This will ensure that any queries or records concerning parish business are easily available.

The chairman reported on the public meeting of the two parishes in the Village Hall on 20th June, which was attended by almost 100 people. There had been strong support for the action of the PC in having the former public house declared an Asset of Community Value, and it had been agreed to set up a steering committee of volunteers to discuss the way forward. This would begin its work shortly. A full report of the meeting appears on the Sibfords website.

Bishop Blaize: The chairman reminded the Parish Council that the owners of the property had been convicted on 29th September 2014 of failing to comply with a valid Enforcement Order to cease to use the property as a private residence. Since then they have resumed residence there, and have declared their intention not to open the property as a public house but as a weekend restaurant by appointment only. On 28th July the parish clerk was informed by letter from Mrs Jarvis, the Cherwell Enforcement Officer, that this does not conform to the designated use of the property as an A4 public house. In the light of the ten year history of prevarication by the owners, it was agreed to write to Cherwell District Council asking them to take appropriate enforcement action as soon as possible.

Other matters arising were attended to under the various agenda items.

Chairman’s Report
Highways: One of the subjects raised at the Annual Parish Council Meeting was the poor state of the highways in this area.. A letter was sent to Oxfordshire Highways bringing various matters to their attention including grids and channels, gulleys and grids, drains, holes in the roads and repairs to them. A request was made for a meeting with the most senior and relevant person with a view to discussing the matters raised. The Parish Council has now been informed by the Area Steward (Cherwell), Oxfordshire County Council, that such a meeting is to be arranged very shortly at a mutually convenient date.

Burdrop Broadband: Communication from BT
Burdrop Broadband has been connected and will shortly be activated.

Millennium Field
The Chairman reported that the purchase had been finalised. The Parish Council is to take part in its maintenance and financial arrangements are in place.

Financial Matters
There was nothing to report apart from that the Report of the External Auditor is awaited in respect of the Annual Financial Return for the year ended 31st March 2016.

Since the previous Meeting, cheques issued are shown at Appx A. 

Planning Matters
Pheasant Pluckers Inn: : The undermentioned planning application had been received:-
16/01525/F The Pheasant Pluckers Inn, Burdrop Mr G R Noquet Erection of a two storey cottage with 2 en-suite bedrooms, kitchen, dining and lounge facilities. Permission is also required for the siting of a garden shed

It was agreed to oppose this application: the reasons are given at Appx B. 

Muddle Barn Farm:
The applicant Mr Besterman was invited to address the meeting, and was questioned on his responses to the Parish Council’s objections to previous plans. It was agreed to oppose this fourth application, on the grounds given previously. The submission appears as Appx C. 

Since the previous Meeting, planning applications and decision received from Cherwell District Council are shown at Appx D. 

Highways

Junction -Main Street/Pound Lane Crossroads
With regard to a request from local residents for the kerb at the junction to be raised in an attempt to stop vehicles driving over the verge and where an accident happened earlier this year, the Parish Council has been speaking with Oxfordshire Highways and they will carry out the work, if requested. The problem is the cost is in the region of £3,000 (including VAT). The Parish Council does not have the money for this and it was agreed to approach Oxfordshire CC Highways, the Town Estate Charity and the Parents Association of the Primary School, to ask if they will share the cost.

Footpaths:

Cllr Susan Bannister presented her Report which included information about clearing footpaths, a complaint with regard to the ‘Piggies’ Path, sheep escaping from the Glebe field into the Churchyard and the Parish Council Burial Ground resulting in damage to flowers placed in front of headstones.

The Report in full is given at Appx E. 

Any Other Business
No matters were raised.

Date of Next Meeting:
The next Parish Council Meeting will be on Monday, 5th December 2016 starting at 8pm in the Staff Room of the Primary School.

————-ooOoo———–

Public Participation
The following matters were raised by local residents present at the Meeting:-

Bishop Blaize – A local resident wished to know the current situation. This had been on the agenda for the Meeting before this local resident arrived. The Chairman brought him up to date.

Sheep in Churchyard and Burial Ground – Great concern was expressed by a local resident present at the Meeting that flowers placed on his late wife’s grave had been eaten by sheep which had escaped from the adjoining field. His son had witnessed sheep jumping over a dividing wall. Cllr Susan Bannister has been speaking with the sheep’s owner with a view to resolving the matter and this new situation will be discussed with him in an attempt to prevent future situations. One of the problems is that users of the public footpaths fail, from time to time, to securely close gates.

A local resident, present at the Meeting, again raised the subject of creating parking spaces next to The Old Rectory. The Chairman said that the matter had been raised many times previously and there was no way that it could be taken forward.

_____________________________________________________________________

Appx A

Cheques issued
Cheque No. 259 dated 25.05.16 £247.20 payable to Thomas Fox Landscaping – Maintenance of Churchyard and Burial Ground
Cheque No. 260 cancelled
Cheque No. 261 dated 31.05.16 £350.00 payable to Sibford Village Hall
Cheque No. 262 dated 26.06.16 £33.50 payable to Sibford Ferris Parish Council
Cheque No. 263 dated 28.06.16 £250.00 payable to Sibford Village Hall
Cheque No. 264 dated 29.06.16 £370.80 payable to Thomas Fox Landscaping
Cheque No. 265 dated 05.07.16 £ 27.00 payable to Sibford Village Hall
Cheque No. 266 dated 08.07.16 £200.00 payable to R Locke & Son
Cheque No. 267 dated 16.07.16 £ 45.00 payable to Open Spaces Society
Cheque No. 268 dated 29.07.16 £247.20 payable to Thomas Fox Landscaping
Cheque No. 269 dated 27.08.16 £247.20 payable to Thomas Fox Landscaping

return

Appx B

16/01525/F The Pheasant Pluckers Inn, Burdrop, Sibford Gower
Comments of Sibford Gower Parish Council
The Parish Council is firmly of the opinion that this application should be rejected on the following grounds:

1. The development proposed is on the car park of the former public house, which has been accepted by all parties to be an intrinsic part of the curtilage of the public house in a series of Public Inquiries and Appeals from 2012 onwards (APP/C3105/C/12/2170904; APP/C3105/A/13/219074; APP/C3015/C/13/2207390; APP/C3015/W/15/3136680). In all of these it has been recognised that the car park is essential to the future opening of the public house, since without its unencumbered use the pub would find it difficult to attract business from a wider area. As such the car park was included in the successful application by Sibford Gower Parish Council in 2016 for the property to be listed as an Asset of Community Value.This development involves a change of use not permitted under the terms of the ACV. On 20th June 2016 a public meeting of over a hundred inhabitants of the three villages of the Sibfords and Butdrop supported the aim of a community purchase of the property; plans for this are currently being pursued.
2. The car park lies at the centre of the conservation area between the two villages of Sibford Gower and Sibford Ferris in a prominent position. The proposed building is within the Sibfords Conservation Area; it does not satisfy the legal requirement ‘to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.’ Indeed the Conservation Plan for the Sibfords published in 2012 by Cherwell District Council identified the Sibford Gap between the two villages of Sibford Gower and Sibford Ferris as an essential feature to be protected against all intrusion on ‘the inherent visual aesthetic of the Sib valley’, and warned that ‘housing infill and “settlement building creep” should be resisted’ (section 8).
3. The plans are inadequate, and appear to be almost identical with a previous application of 2009 (09/01275/F), which was withdrawn as a result of the opposition of the Cherwell Conservation Officer on the grounds that it would affect the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The size and height of the new proposal would have a significant impact on this.
4. A number of earlier historic applications to build in the Sibford Gap had already been refused for similar reasons.
5. There is no indication of the purpose of the proposed building in relation to the designated use of the property as a public house. We believe that the property is not in fact operating as a public house, as required by the court decision of 29th September 2014.
6. The retrospective application for the siting of a garden shed is a separate issue, and should be the subject of a separate planning application.

return

Appx C

Muddle Barn Farm, Sibford Gower: Application no 16/01563/F
Submission of Sibford Gower Parish Council
MUDDLE BARN FARM was originally a small dwelling for agricultural occupancy created in 1986 for and ancillary to New Barn Farm; subsequently in 1997 it was sold off and extensive livery stables were built adjacent to the dwelling. In August 2014 Cherwell District Council granted a CLUE certificate (14/01100/CLUE) against the original planning permission condition, since the unlawful use as a dwelling not in agricultural occupancy had existed for some time.

The application is the fourth to be considered by the Council, which has also conducted a site meeting, and on this occasion (6.9.16) invited the owner to address the Parish Council meeting. After hearing his representations questions were asked in relation to the specific objections raised by the PC in relation to the previous applications. We remain of the opinion that these have not been satisfactorily addressed, and therefore wish to continue to oppose the development.

With minor changes and a slight reduction in size, the application remains the same as before, for the replacement of the existing dwelling by a much larger private house of different character, together with associated demolition of most of the existing stabling. We accept the view of the Planning Officers offered in the minutes of Cherwell Planning Committee of 18/2/16 that:
 

• The proposal would result in a considerably larger dwelling than the one it would replace, on a different siting and not within the curtilage of the existing dwelling, and would not be for an agricultural or other land based business. Therefore, by virtue of its scale and siting, the proposal would not constitute an appropriate replacement dwelling and would result in a new dwelling in an isolated location in the countryside. In addition by virtue of its scale, design and siting, the proposal would fail to preserve the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the local landscape. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies H17 and H18 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996, Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 and paragraphs 17 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

We have considered the additional evidence presented by the applicants, and do not find it convincing:

There is no reason to concur with the Landscape and Visual Assessment study previously submitted which divides the Sib Valley into two contrasting area types: ‘Rolling Village Pasture’, and ‘Wooded Pasture Valley and Slopes’. The landscape on both sides of the Colony Road is identical, and in our view is correctly categorised as ‘Rolling Village Pasture’. The extensive garden landscaping and planting around the house would indeed change the landscape nature of the valley as a whole. We are unhappy with this change in an area of High Landscape Value.

We do not find the parallels for historic large Georgian style buildings in the area convincing: they are for the most part within the curtilage of a village rather than in open countryside, and do not override the Planning regulations currently in force.

We do not accept the claim that Policy H17 ‘is an old and outdated policy’ (Carter Jonas document p. 10). It remains an essential criterion for limiting development within the countryside.

Despite the representations of the owner of New Barn Farm, we do not believe that the issue of the relation to New Barn Farm has been properly addressed.

We repeat some relevant earlier comments:
Size:
Despite their utilitarian nature, the present buildings are low and well shielded; they make little impact on the surrounding landscape. The proposal is to create a replacement dwelling five times the size of the original, erecting a four bed-room three storey house in place of a small three bed-room chalet type dwelling, together with a separate dwelling of two storeys which is approximately the same size as the original dwelling.
The Design and Access statement makes much of the fact that because the new development is placed at a lower level on the site, its height above sea level will be identical with the old, at a building height of 177.58m. But that does not alter the fact that the ground floor to roof elevation of the new building is approximately one third greater than the old, and that the size and shape of the main house is much greater than the original.
Nor does it address the surrounding locality. The proposed development is situated on high land with magnificent views in every direction. These views extend as far as the Sibfords to the north (1 mile), Hook Norton to the east (3 miles), the Rollright Stones, Whichford Wood and Oatley Hill to the south (5-8 miles), and Broadway Tower to the west (13 miles). It will be prominently visible across a wide area.
The overall bulk and particularly the increased overall height of the development will also create an unacceptable impact on the immediate vicinity, dominating the valley. Whatever planting mitigation is proposed, any view of the building will stand out like a sore thumb across a landscape characterised by traditional and modest farm buildings, and the planting will change the nature of the valley and its landscape irrevocably in summer, while having no screening effect in winter. Some of this impact can be assessed by comparison with two nearby properties. New Barn Farm itself is very visible in the valley from surrounding hill paths; the new building will be in the same position, and approximately three times the size. The proposal is comparable in size to the dominant Gauthern’s Barn on the other side of the valley (built before existing regulations were in place); but that at least is partially hidden from many angles by the bend in the valley.
Design: The proposal is to replace an admittedly undistinguished modest sixties chalet-type building with a ‘finely designed Georgian house’ (7.12) of ‘country house character’ or ‘late Georgian Regency property’ with ‘later’ Victorian additions. That may be appropriate for the deep Cotswolds, but is completely out of keeping with the traditional vernacular architecture of the Banbury ironstone area, and in particular of the Sib Valley. The proposal will permanently alter the landscape.

National Planning Policy Framework 59-60 do not permit prescription on style but do suggest concentrating on ‘overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout … in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally’, and state that ‘it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness’ (quoted in Planning Statement 3.5-6).
Local Plan H 17 (retained) (quoted in Planning Statement 3.7) permits replacement of a dwelling outside the limits of an existing settlement provided that ‘the proposed replacement is similar in scale and within the same curtilage’. This proposal is of a quite different scale, and is stated by the applicants to be in terms of floor area approximately five times the size of the original dwelling (Design and Access Statement 4.1). Despite the modest reductions in size, the claim that this discrepancy can be mitigated by invoking permitted development guidelines seems to us irrelevant, and still leaves a significant shortfall.
Local Plan C 30 (retained) requires compatibility with appearance, character, layout, scale and density of existing dwellings in the vicinity. This has not been demonstrated in relation especially to New Barn Farm.
Local Policy ESD 13 Local Landscape Protection and Enhancement: ‘Development will be expected to respect and enhance local landscape character … Proposals will not be permitted if they would: Cause undue visual intrusion into the open countryside; Cause undue harm to important natural landscape features and topography; Be inconsistent with local character; Impact on areas judged to have a high level of tranquility.’ The valley in which the property stands is open farmland designated as an Area of High Landscape Value. While this designation does not itself affect permitted development rights it must be asked whether the development is at all compatible with the aim of the Council as expressed in the newly adopted Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031. Emerging Planning Policy ESD 16 (quoted 3.15-16) require justification in terms of complementing and enhancing the context and an explanation of the design rationale. This has not been provided.

return

Appx D

Planning Applications
Since the previous Meeting, the following planning applications had been considered:-

return

Appx E

Footpaths – Report by Cllr Susan Bannister
Given Cherwell’s economic situation, I have been clearing the footpaths within the village of Sibford Gower myself. Latterly I have been assisted by a local teenager who is doing his Duke of Edinburgh Bronze award.

I had received a complaint about the ‘Piggies’ Path leading to the Surgery as a parishioner had slipped on it in the dark. After asking Sarah Aldous, Oxfordshire’s Footpath’s Officer, whether we could put down gravel to alleviate the situation and being told that inspection of the material would be required, we raked the path and cut back the overhanging growth. I informed Sarah Aldous of what we had done but said that the final few steps down to the road, almost opposite the Surgery, were beyond my capabilities but needed a solution, given the lack of steps down to the road there. Sarah said that she would contact Highways as they might be able to sort out the problem.

Another difficulty has been the escape of sheep from the glebe field just below the burial ground and churchyard. As I understand it, it is rented by Alan Berks from the Diocese of Oxford. There had been several complaints from parishioners that the sheep were escaping from the field into, amongst other places, the churchyard and burial ground and eating the flowers placed on graves. It was explained by a parishioner attending the meeting that the sheep had been seen jumping the wall into the churchyard.

Other complaints had referred to the sheep getting through the kissing gates because they didn’t close automatically and because, most particularly, walkers failed to put the strings provided by Mr Berks. I have been in touch with Sarah Aldous about these problems. She has explained where the responsibility lies in each situation and Mr Berks has cleared a fallen tree. Carter Jonas is working on the kissing gate problem and I await clarification about how to stop sheep jumping over the wall into the churchyard, possibly using an electric fence.

We have been pleased to see that the overhanging vegetation on the footpath beside the road between Sibford Ferris and Burdrop, from the bridge upward to Burdrop has been cut back and are grateful to the landowner.

return