Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of East Hanney Parish Council
22nd September 2016 – 8pm
The meeting had been called by the Chairman, Cllr J Triffitt.
1. Attending: Cllr J Triffitt, Cllr S Scott, Cllr J Long, Cllr D Kirk, Cllr P Aram, Cllr S
McKechnie (part).
Apologies were received from: District Cllr M Barber, County Cllr Melinda Tilley.
In attendance: G Langton (Clerk), P Gammond (OCC Gypsy and Traveller Services) (part), PC T Pryor (Thames Valley Police), Ian Green (EH), Dickon Green (EH), William McCall (EH), Penny McCall (EH), Jean Geary (EH), Edith Craig (EH), John Craig (EH), Ann Fewins (EH), Sue Tyak (EH), Chris Baker (EH), Tony Jasper (EH), Jan Jasper (EH), JWT Harvey (EH), Jim Stagg (Hanney News),
2. Members Declarations of Interest.
No member declared a financial interest in any items on the agenda.
3. Public Participation Period.
Re item 4: the potential development of Houses north of Ashfields Lane.
Tony Jasper noted that he considered the development to be the start of a
bigger estate, looking at the layout.
Chris Baker noted that those most affected did not get the leaflets and did not access the PC meeting agenda in advance of the meeting.
JT noted that a pile of leaflets had been left in the community shop by the developers representatives. DK noted that the mailing had been undertaken by the developer to allow them to say they have consulted with the local community. Action Clerk to advise Pye Homes and westwaddy ADP that the mailing had not been comprehensive.
Chris Baker also noted that the proposed exit from the development was on to the A338, a busy road that has been recently surveyed for traffic numbers by the OCC Highways Department. Action SS to obtain the outcomes of this survey.
William McColl noted that in recent years a map had been issued by the Vale of White Horse District Council noting the suitability or not of potential building sites across the village. On that map, much of the land identified by westwaddy ADP and Pye Homes had been considered unsuitable and enquired what has changed? DK commented that this information would be helpful if it was still
available.
John Craig noted that the proposed development represented a huge extension of the village boundary, and noted that 4 houses were also currently planned for Ashfields lane. He also noted that standing water is often seen on this field and that reason had been used to discount development at that location in the recent past.
4. To consider: Playing field security andmeasures to be adopted.
JT opened the discussions thanking PC Pryor and OCC’s P Gammond for their attendance. He noted that the purpose of the meeting was not to criticise the Police or OCC but was aware that the travellers had acted in an antisocial manner and caused disturbance in the village. He reported that the PC had contracted Rentokil Hygiene to clean the campsite and field edges of human
waste, dog waste and more general rubbish.
JT confirmed that the travellers had left the village after one week and that they had gained access before the locks were obtained for the gates and by following
an allotment holder.
PC Pryor addressed the Council stating that that legislation enshrines articles 5 and 11 of the Human Rights act and that to accuse an individual of a crime, the police would have to have the evidence to link any crimes directly to the travellers. The police worked with OCC to serve eviction notices.He noted the police were aware that there had been hostility from the local community
towards the travellers, towards the Police and OCC.
P Gammond noted that OCC had to undertake certain activities once they are aware of an unauthorized traveller encampment. Following the report, OCC makes education and health visits and a great deal of paperwork is generated. From a procedural point of view, after the paperwork has been done an eviction hearing takes around 4 weeks to be allocated by the magistrates’ court. With regard to individual traveller groups, some were respectful, others not. In any case, he explained that OCC cannot use legislation to move travelers on more quickly, it could take a few days to a week at any time.
SS inquired if to the position if the travellers break a lock, would that be a criminal or a civil matter? PC Pryor noted that if there were no witnesses it
would be difficult to take legal action, though CCTV footage could help.
P Gammond noted that some further work on the gate was required to improve security, with some work to ensure that the gates cannot be removed from their hinges. PA noted that such work was in hand and would be completed in due course. PG noted that a ditch approx. 18" deep with spoil piled beside would be helpful as they are hard to cross for travellers’ vehicles. PC Pryor noted that travellers would take the easiest option, though they would gain access if they wanted to and that the
northern field would need some protection.
DK noted that the travellers’ behaviour was reported to the police but that villagers had no evidence of the police attending the encampment to investigate further. PC Pryor noted that the local force had allocated daily patrols and advised local people not to challenge the travellers. PA noted that a number of incidents did happen and that villagers felt that the police were not investigating
the complaints.
JS noted that according to his searches on the DVLA website not all the travellers’ vehicles had tax or MOT and wondered if that was followed up? PC Pryor reported that the DVLA would follow up lack of tax and that vehicles could be seized but the vehicles were often 'legal'.He reported that the police had a
record of the details of the travellers and their vehicles.
P Gammond reported that the trespass act of 1980 was not appropriate as the land was publicly owned, and that human rights activities still had to be
undertaken, for example the education and health visits.
JT noted the Council’s thanks to PC Pryor and P Gammond.
In continued discussion, PA noted hinges are to be welded with retaining washers and that a ditch should be dug round the edges of the northern field. Council resolved to seek quotes on ditching the field to the north of the playing fields and that the current tenants might be willing to allow access before their tenancy ends. Action Clerk.
SS noted that local people needed to be educated not to accept tree work at the
door, starting with a piece in Hanney News. Action Clerk.
JT noted that any decisions need to be communicated to West Hanney Parish
Council.Action Clerk.
The Council resolved to investigate installing a CCTV camera linked into the War Memorial Hall's system and to seek quotes for the installation of automatic floodlights overlooking the gate. Action Clerk.
The Council discussed the types of lock to be used and resolved that the current
combination padlocks would be the only one used.
5. To consider: The Parish Council’s response to the following
development activity:
a. Approach from westwaddy ADP regarding a parcel of land North
of Ashfield’s Lane, East Hanney.
JT opened the item noting that East Hanney had received a large expansion of housing over last 5 years with little improvement to the village’s infrastructure. The Council was working to achieve a more reasonable rate of future expansion. It was noted that the developer had indicated that up to 75 properties could be
developed on the site, though the number could creep higher.
DK noted that the application was bound to be submitted in due course and that the Council should decide whether to approach any submitted application in a similar manner to previous large applications, with public events and evidence gathering. SS agreed, noting that a leaflet drop was also essential to allow for inclusion of all villagers. JL agreed that the same efforts should be dedicated to any submitted application for this land as had been done with Linden’s and Barwood’s applications.It was resolved that any public meeting would need to be arranged soon after the planning application had been received. SMcK offered to
be the communications hub with residents adjacent to the site.
SS considered that preemptive work also needed to be undertaken, for example engaging with the other statutory respondents, such as for example OCC Highways and Thames Water, and that VWHDC policies, archaeology, ecology, drainage and any transport plan for school access and lack of school capacity
should be considered.
DK noted that access to the planned estate might not be suitable, reporting that the highways department had made mistakes with data in the past. He reported that developers’ flooding and ecology surveys had been less than complete or effective with regard to previous applications. SMcK agreed, noting that the cumulative effect of evidence had been significant in the past, giving weight to
any opposition to development.
SMcK proposed that a budget of up to £3500 be allocated to oppose any application for this site, this was seconded by JL and unanimously agreed by the Council.
The meeting closed at 21.25
Guy Langton, Clerk to East Hanney Parish Council ()2