Agenda
The meeting of the Parish Council is to be held by video conference at 7pm on Monday 05 October 2020. Members of the public are invited to attend and listen to the proceedings. (Zoom meeting access details attached)
In the interests of transparency, the council asks that any person wishing to record the meetings proceedings informs the Chairman prior to the start of the meeting and that recording equipment is on view. There is an Open Session on the Agenda at which time members of the public are invited to raise any matters pertaining to the work of the committee, limited to fifteen minutes, during which time Standing Orders will be suspended.
- Apologies for Absence
- Declarations of Interest
- Council Vacancy: To Note Expression of Interest and Consider Co-option
- Minutes of the Full Council Extraordinary Remote Meeting held on 21st September 2020 for Approval
- Chairman’s Announcements
- Clerk’s Report on Previous Minutes
- Open Session for Members of the Public to Raise Matters of Council Business, Limited to 15 Minutes
- Planning & Environment
- Applications; To Consider
- Planning Decisions: To Note
- Roadworks Bulletins
- VIA /NCC Consultation: Cropwell Road, Glebe Lane and Victoria Street (Introduction of Zebra Crossing, Stopping and Waiting
- Govt White Papers: Planning for the Future: ROTPC Response
- Amenities
- Hall Managers Report
- Grange Grounds Enhancement Discussion
- Cemetery Memorial Audit :To Arrange a Working Group Meeting
- Grange Grounds: To Consider Boulders to Replace Posts
- Finance and General Purposes
- Parish Email System. and Cllr Hardware: To Consider
- Budget 2021-22: To Arrange a Working Group Meeting and Set a Deadline for Suggestions
- Grant Application: Manor House- Furniture
- Correspondence
Ruth Edwards MP: Radcliffe Rail Survey - Parish Councillors and Outside Organisations Reports
- Reports from Borough and County Councillors
- Date of Next Full Council Meeting – 19 October 2020
Invite
Radcliffe On Trent Parish Council is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Radcliffe On Trent Parish Council’s Zoom Meeting
Time: Oct 5, 2020 07:00 PM London
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/97470524800?pwd=c3RFNzloeEZjanVjYnFpT2plVm9yUT09
Meeting ID: 974 7052 4800
Passcode: 099684
One tap mobile
Dial by your location
Passcode: 099684
Meeting ID: 974 7052 4800
local number: 0330 088 5830
Radcliffe on Trent Parish Council
Press and Publicity Joining the Zoom Meeting
There will be an option on entering to use your video, mic, and enter your name
- Name – The name you enter will be displayed on screen, so please decide before joining the meeting if you wish to use your first or last name only.
- Camera – This does not have to be used, you will see the Councillors and other attendees but we will not see you unless you have the camera on. If you wish to speak, it would be useful for your camera to be on, but it is not essential.
- Mic – You will need the mic on if you wish to speak, but to ensure the meeting runs as smoothly as possible, please leave your mic off until the public participation section of the meeting. At this point the Chair will ask for anyone wishing to speak, say your name to indicate you wish to speak, the Chair will then as you to speak in turn. (Limited to 12 minutes) Please turn off your mic after speaking in this item for the remainder of the meeting to avoid background interference.
You can view the Parish Councils Privacy Policy by visiting:
https://www.rotpc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Parish_Council_Privacy_NoticeV1.0.pdf Meetings are not presently recorded, but are minuted by Parish Council
Agenda Item #3
Dear
I am writing to ask about about rejoining Radcliffe-on-Trent Parish Council.
Having been born and raised in the village, I feel my local knowledge and affection for Radcliffe might continue to be of some use. I am an experienced councillor having previously served a full term in the 1990’s.
I taught English and History for 37 years in a range of mainstream, special and secure settings. I have been a school governor at both the Junior School and Dayncourt (as was), a WEA committee member, on the management committee of the Manor House and continue to be a Jeffrey Dole trustee as well as the chair of the Grange Hall Entertainments Committee.
I am particularly interested in opportunities and facilities for young people in this village, as well as the care of the elderly and the less fortunate.
I do hope that my knowledge and experience may be of some use, once again, to the Parish Council.
With kind regards,
PLANNING APPLICATIONS CV19 12.
| RBC Ref | Date | Applicant | Location | Details | Dec | Vote | Comments |
| 20/02305/FUL | 23.9.20 | Phil Ruff | 86 Sheford Road | Erection of new wall to front highway facing boundary | Respond by 14.10.20 | ||
| 20/01827/FUL | 28.9.20 | Peter Fletcher | 5 Shaftsbury Ave, Upper Saxondale | Erection of single storey rear extension with new patio area | Respond by 19.10.20 | ||
Rushcliffe Borough / County Council Decisions
| Ref | Applicant | Location | Details | P.C Dec | PC Comments | RBC Dec |
| 20/01796/FUL | Mr Alistair Hunt | 6 Hammersmith Close, Upper Saxondale | Trees: T1-T2 &T7 (Beech) Crown lift to 6m. T4 (Oak) Fell | OBJ | To the felling of the Oak only | Grant Consent |
| 20/01786/TPO | Mr David Shutter | 8 Westminster Drive, Upper Saxondale | Tree: T1 (Tree of Heaven) Remove current wind blown branch. Target prune snag back to main stem. Reduce height by 4-5m back to suitable replacement branches. Target prune 2 lower south west facing branches back to structural stem. Target prune 1 lower north west facing branch back to main stem. Tree: T2 (Birch) Reduce entire crown by 4-5m back to suitable replacement branches, Keeping a uniformed crown. | DNO | Refer to RBC Tree Officer | Grant Consent |
| 20/01824/FUL | Mr A King | 76 Grantham Road | Roof remodelling on garage from flat to pitched roof with additional front porch and rendering | DNO | 8 for 3 abs | Grant Permission |
Agenda 8D
No-8d1-8284-Advert-Letter.docx-003No-8d2-8284-Site-Notice.doc
No-8d3-8284-Zebra-Crossing-Site-Notice-.doc
No-8d4-8284-Advert-Plan
Agenda 8e
Ministry of housing communities and local government White Paper review for comments.
Authors Councillors J Spencer, P. Thomas A. McCloud D Graham S Clegg A Tomlinson T James.
Monday 21st of September we read and discussed the white paper it was agreed to go away and think about responses. We agreed to return on the 28th September to formulate answers to the questions posed in the document.
Monday 28th of September. There are 34 questions that comments are invited. We found many difficult to respond to as a detailed knowledge of planning and its technicalities are required. Below are our responses to the questions we felt we could answer.
Q1: Do you agree that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is whichever is the higher of the level of 0.5% of housing stock in each local authority area OR the latest household projections averaged over a 10-year period?
Answer Not sure. no supporting comment.
Q2: In the stock element of the baseline, do you agree that 0.5% of existing stock for thestandard method is appropriate? If not, please explain.
Answer yes
supporting statement
However we think Brownfield sites and existing unused commercial premises should take priority over further release of green belt.
Q3: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio from the most recent year for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline is appropriate? If not, please explain
Answer. No
Recent experience has shown that despite the borough having a relatively low median earnings, house prices are still rising. We feel this is too simplistic an approach, we should look to having a greater housing mix, and local input is most important
Q4: Do you agree that incorporating an adjustment for the change of affordability over 10 years is a positive way to look at whether affordability has improved? If not, please explain why.
Answer. No
Q5: Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the standard method? If not, please explain why.
ANSWER Not Sure
No supporting statement
Do you agree that authorities should be planning having regard to their revised standard method need figure, from the publication date of the revised guidance, with the exception of:
Q6: Authorities which are already at the second stage of the strategic plan consultation process (Regulation 19), which should be given 6 months to submit their plan to the Planning Inspectorate for examination? If not, please explain why. Are there particular circumstances which need to be catered for?
Answer Not Sure
No supporting statement
Do you agree that authorities should be planning having regard to their revised standard method need figure, from the publication date of the revised guidance, with the exception of:
Q7: Authorities close to publishing their second stage consultation (Regulation 19), which should be given 3 months from the publication date of the revised guidance to publish their Regulation 19 plan, and a further 6 months to submit their plan to the Planning Inspectorate? If not, please explain why. Are there particular circumstances which need to be catered for?
Not Sure
No supporting statement
Changes to the current planning system
Delivering First Homes
57%
Q8: The Government is proposing policy compliant planning applications will deliver a minimum of 25% of onsite affordable housing as First Homes, and a minimum of 25% of offsite contributions towards First Homes where appropriate. Which do you think is the most appropriate option for the remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions? Please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):
i) Prioritising the replacement of affordable home ownership tenures, and delivering rental tenures in the ratio set out in the local plan policy. YES AGREE WITH THIS.
ii) Negotiation between a local authority and developer.
iii) Other (please specify):
Our supporting statement : We support the replacement of affordable home ownership. Should there be a local plan this should be included. As a Parish Council with a neighbourhood plan .we would wish to have input re-amounts and who qualifies.
With regards to current exemptions from delivery of affordable home ownership products:
Q9: Should the existing exemptions from the requirement for affordable home ownership products (eg. for build to rent) also apply to apply to this First Homes requirement?
Answer No
Our supporting statement: It is extremely important that the affordable homes are for existing residents, who are unable to access housing due to high prices, young people need to be able to continue to live in their village. There is a need to guard against profiteering and subletting.
With regards to current exemptions from delivery of affordable home ownership products:
Q10: Are any existing exemptions not required? If not, please set out which exemptions and why.
With regards to current exemptions from delivery of affordable home ownership products:
Q11: Are any other exemptions needed? If so, please provide reasons and /or evidence for your views:
Answer Not sure
No Supporting statement:
Q12: Do you agree with the proposed approach to transitional arrangements set out above?
Answer. Not Sure
NO supporting statement
Q13: Do you agree with the proposed approach to different levels of discount?
Answer Not Sure
Our supporting statement: We would only consider changes to exemptions following negotiation with planning authorities
Q14: Do you agree with the approach of allowing a small proportion of market housing on First Homes exception sites, in order to ensure site viability?
Answer. No
Our supporting statement: Developments of over 10 houses should qualify for a percentage of affordable homes.
Q15: Do you agree with the removal of the site size threshold set out in the National Planning Policy Framework?
Not Sure
No supporting statement
Q16: Do you agree that the First Homes exception sites policy should not apply in designated rural areas?
Yes
Our supporting statement: It is critical in rule areas that affordable homes are available to local families.
Changes to the current planning system
Supporting small and medium-sized developers
64%
For each of these questions, please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):
Q17: Do you agree with the proposed approach to raise the small sites threshold for a time-limited period?
No
Our supporting statement: 106 and sill Payments are critical to communities in order to increase current and additional facilities. Provision of affordable homes should not decrease these payments. Small developments are also more desirable Ie. infill
Q18: What is the appropriate level of small sites threshold?
i) Up to 40 homes
ii) Up to 50 homes
iii) Other (please specify):
We suggest 10.
supporting statement: We are happy the existing system works and we have no evidence that there is a problem with small builders.
Q19: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the site size threshold?
Answer. No
No supporting statement
Q20: Do you agree with linking the time-limited period to economic recovery and raising the threshold for an initial period of 18 months?
No
Our supporting statement: Currently we do not see a problem in the housing market house sales are extremely buoyant and new builds are selling quickly.
Q21: Do you agree with the proposed approach to minimising threshold effects?
Yes
Our supporting statement: It is important that large developments contribute and do not use this as a loophole.
Q22: Do you agree with the Government’s proposed approach to setting thresholds in rural areas?
Yes
No supporting statement
Q23: Are there any other ways in which the Government can support SME builders to deliver new homes during the economic recovery period?
Answer No
No supporting statement.
Changes to the current planning system
Extension of the Permission in Principle consent regime
71%
Q24: Do you agree that the new Permission in Principle should remove the restriction on major development?
Answer No
Our supporting statement: Consultation is important how will the local community have a proper say. This will be seen as undermining the planning process.
Q25: Should the new Permission in Principle for major development set any limit on the amount of commercial development (providing housing still occupies the majority of the floorspace of the overall scheme)? Please provide any comments in support of your views.
Answer Not Sure
Our supporting statement: In the current climate work patterns are changing rapidly local input is critical one size does not fit all. Initial consultations should be based on a neighbourhood plan.
Q26: Do you agree with our proposal that information requirements for Permission in Principle by application for major development should broadly remain unchanged? If you disagree, what changes would you suggest and why?
Answer Yes
Our supporting statement: A sliding scale should be introduced to be commensurate with the size of the development with a 14 day minimum consultation period.
Q27: Should there be an additional height parameter for Permission in Principle? Please provide comments in support of your views.
Answer No
Our supporting statement:Again this is too simplistic and approach each application should be looked at in relevance to its position and surroundings
Q28: Do you agree that publicity arrangements for Permission in Principle by application should be extended for large developments? If so, should local planning authorities be:
i) required to publish a notice in a local newspaper?
ii) subject to a general requirement to publicise the application or iii) both?
iv) disagree
Answer both.
Social media must be an additional tool in the consultation process.
Q29: Do you agree with our proposal for a banded fee structure based on a flat fee per hectarage, with a maximum fee cap
Not Sure
No supporting statement
Q30: What level of flat fee do you consider appropriate, and why? No COMMENT
Q31: Do you agree that any brownfield site that is granted Permission in Principle through the application process should be included in Part 2 of the Brownfield Land Register? If you disagree, please state why.
Answer Yes
Our supporting statement :Every opportunity must be taken to prioritise Brownfield sites
Q32: What guidance would help support applicants and local planning authorities to make decisions about Permission in Principle? Where possible, please set out any areas of guidance you consider are currently lacking and would assist stakeholders.
Answer. More consultation with local Parish Council and local residents more notice taken of existing neighbourhood plans
Regulatory Impact Assessment
Q33: What costs and benefits do you envisage the proposed scheme would cause? Where you have identified drawbacks, how might these be overcome?
Regulatory Impact Assessment
Answer:Any decision to reduce the cost of the planning system should not reduce the input from the local population.
Q34: To what extent do you consider landowners and developers are likely to use the proposed measure? Please provide evidence where possible.
No comments.
Changes to the current planning system
Public Sector Equality Duty
Q35: In light of the proposals set out in this consultation, are there any direct or indirect impacts in terms of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations on people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty?
If so, please specify the proposal and explain the impact. If there is an impact – are there any actions which the department could take to mitigate that impact?
Answer No.
Agenda 9B
Considerations for upgrading of Grange Grounds.
The Parish Council had always been aware of the importance of the Grange grounds. This has been particularly evident through the Covid restrictions. We have all rejoiced seeing families and friends reconnecting in our grounds, indeed we are proud to have played our part. This is something we wish to build on for the future.
The Parish are committed to improving and enhancing the amenities and usage of this area. The growth board are sympathetic to our Vision. Money may be available, we need to drive this forward so we can benefit from this and also obtain OUR desired conclusions.
I list some areas that we need to consider.
- We make the grounds a more integral part of the villlage centre. Ease of access .
2 We provide more amenities for the area.
3. Look to pruning and removal of existing trees and look to replant
4 We say this is your space use it.
Things to consider
1 . Remove the wall at the corner from the toilets to the gate. Level the ground.
2. Provide a shelter for people of all ages to gather for fun and education.
3 Provide additional picnic tables around the play area for young parents and kids.
4Remove one tree and crown lift others at the front of the Grange grounds.
5 Look at the area behind the Grange Hall possible excavate out a couple of feet to provide an
Over spill area from the Trent room .Wil need to change some windows to patio doors .
This is really going some but I think strangely enough we may be able to access more money at this time.
All the above are for discussion but I ask you all let’s come out of this period with massive positives, and a legacy for the future.
Regards
Jo Spencer
Agenda 9d
Agenda 10a
G.Suite
Basic
£4.14
£4.60
GBP / user / month
INCLUDED APPLICATIONS
- Gmail Business email
- Meet Video and voice conferencing
- Chat Team messaging
- Calendar Shared calendars
- Drive 30 GB cloud storage
- Docs Word processing
- Sheets Spreadsheets
- Slides Presentation builder
- Forms Professional surveys builder
- Sites Website builder
- Keep Shared notes
- Currents Engage employees
- Apps Script Automate, integrate and extend with G Suite
SECURITY AND MANAGEMENT
- 24/7 standard support
- Admin Security and administration controls
- Enterprise-grade access control with security key enforcement
- Advanced Protection programme
- Endpoint management Remotely manage your mobile fleet
£4.14 p/m x 18 cllrs (if full council) & 4 staff x 12 months = £1,093
Current Parish email system = £5 per user per annum – x18 = £90
NO.-10a-parish-councils-own-device-fact-sheetAgenda 10c
GRANT APPLICATION
| Applicant’s name | Trustee/Treasurer | |||
| On behalf of | Radcliffe Manor House | |||
| Address | 52, Main Road, Radcliffe on Trent | |||
| Post code | NG12 2AA | |||
| Contact numbers | Mobile | Landline | ||
| Email address | ||||
| Bank account | Sort code | Account number | ||
| Account name | Radcliffe Manor House |
| Your Financial information | ||
| Latest Financial Accounts- date | 31st August ‘20 | |
| Please attach | Yes | |
| Type of project | New Provision to replace old dining furniture | |
| Total cost of project | £3,456 inc vat, we are not VAT registered | |
| Amount requested from Third Parties – with names | £ | |
| Your own funding | £ | |
| Amount requested from PC | £3,456 if possible any shortfall will come from own funds. | |
| The Funding Need | ||
| Project Details | The “Home” which is a registered charity No 232858 has been open since 1952 and offers care for 26 residents. We have been advised by the local authority that our dining furniture needs to be replaced for more modern and hygienic tables and chairs. | |
| How will the project benefit the residents of Radcliffe on Trent? | Most of our residents are local dwellers of Radcliffe and their family are mostly local. We have a policy of supporting local shops and joining in the community. | |
| Period of benefit of funding? e.g. annual insurance (1 year), provision of new kitchen (20 years) | At least 1-15 years. | |
| Any Other relevant information | As you will see from the attached accounts this covid-19 period has had horrendous effect on our financial resources | |
Signed __ ___ Date ___28th September ‘20_______________
Name ____ _____________________________________
| Office Use | |
| Grant Approved | Yes/No |
| Applicant informed | |
| Date | |
| Accounts informed | |
| Date |