• GPRA Committee Meeting 7pm Wednesday 28th May 2014 Minutes

    1. Attendees

    Emma Ainsworth, Barbara Howden Richards, Grace Taylor, Richard Shord, Brad Ainsworth, Jane Haskins, Irela Strachan, Dusty Miller, Sue Cressey.

    Dusty was welcomed to the committee.

    Dusty, Paula and Barbara were thanked for their help in distributing hard copies of the latest newsletter concerning planning developments.

    1. Apologies

    Paula Miller.

    1. Minutes of previous meeting

    Accepted as a fair and accurate record of the meeting

    Approved

    1. Matters arising
    2. a) Neighbourhood watch – no progress yet as CRB checks (or current equivalent) were ongoing. Emma Ainsworth was not receiving email updates and the Treasurer would email Lisa Shadbolt to expedite matters.
    3. b) A note on vandalism and associated costs had been included in the latest newsletter as agreed. It was noted that the burden on residents was severe and all residents are urged to report any anti-social behaviour via the 101 police number. The police would use statistics from such calls to allocate resources. In respect of damage to fencing and bins in Lloyd Road, the committee would pursue answers from West Sussex County Council as to why there were continued delays in opening the cycle path that would ameliorate ongoing damage. Barbara Howden Richards agreed to contact the council after her return from vacation and the treasurer would provide her with a briefing note.
    4. c) Graylingwell Energy – no reply had been received to the last letter from the Chairman. He would write again to confirm the meeting date and attendees. It was recorded that a growing number of residents felt that standing charges were disproportionate and this would be added to the agenda for the meeting. The chairman confirmed that the energy ombudsman was not in a position of authority over Graylingwell Energy. A resident had had a direct debit activated twice in one month and it was agreed that the next newsletter would recommend residents check their bank statements accordingly.
    5. Treasurer’s report

    The balance of funds was £286.44p. The change in funding was due to website alterations to incorporate additional information regarding the master plan planning applications. The cost of printing hard copies of the newsletter to all residents highlighting the changes had been borne by the treasurer.

    1. Master plan planning application

    The treasurer advised the committee that 29.05.14 was the latest date on Chichester District Council’s website for submissions but he had been assured by council representatives that all objections/comments would be considered up to decision date.

    The treasurer had prepared for discussion a list of all objections received by members. It was agreed that each would be discussed and viewed in the light of council guidelines on grounds for objections.

    It was also agreed that each member who had objections/considerations would receive via email a copy of these minutes and a copy of the submission to the council (which would be prepared by the treasurer). Copies of the submission would be forwarded to relevant councillors for Chichester North.

    It was pointed out that any resident who was dissatisfied with the GPRA’s responses could still, as individuals, respond to the council by letter or via the council’s website.

    For details on the objections to the changes in the master plan it will be necessary to look at the submission to the council (which will be posted on the website) but in principle the committee’s decisions were as follows:

    • Housing on wildlife refuge facing Summersdale Road – it was agreed that the GPRA would object
    • Inappropriate style/size of apartments bookending Chapel Green – it was agreed in principle that the GPRA would object
    • Loss of trees on Chapel Green due to building and parking provision for apartments – it was agreed that in principle the GPRA would object
    • Objection to care home – it was noted that permission for this (and its location) was granted in the original planning application and had probably been a council requirement. The GPRA would not object but individual residents could still do so via the council website or by letter
    • Objection to school – it was noted that permission for this (and its location) was granted in the original planning application and had probably been a council requirement. The GPRA would not object but individual residents could still do so via the council website or by letter
    • Reduced size of allotments (no provision for community garden) – whilst it was noted that the river Lavant, and its flood plain, restricted land availability the GPRA would urge the council to insist on provision for the relocation of the community garden (which had proved such a success), the heritage fruit trees, and the maximum amount of green space for growing flowers and vegetables as envisaged in the original plan
    • Overflow car park on Havenstoke Park – the GPRA notes that this will be a recessive feature (with grass support barriers buried) but it will object to the provision unless conditions are placed upon its use, such that it is properly controlled in terms of height barriers, access barriers and that the Chichester Community Development Trust’s business plan encompasses the costs of appropriate litter bins and litter clearance that the site requires
    • Football pitches on Havenstoke Park – the GPRA recognises the need for the CCDT to monetarise its assets for the support of its activities. Several residents, however, object to the loss of facility of an open meadow and believe that regular usage will lead to increase litter and loss of amenity. See point above regarding litter bins etc.
    • Objection to pub/restaurant – some residents object to the presence of a pub/restaurant on site at Graylingwell on the grounds of anti-social behaviour that will follow such a provision. The principal objection of the GPRA is that the building selected for such usage is inappropriate and access issues will preclude a successful community venture. It is further noted that with the refurbishment of the restaurant formally known as Comme Ca, (now to be known as The Wellington) adequate provision for refreshment is already provided locally
    • Further removal of trees in Wooded Hamlet – this proposal is wholly unacceptable (see below).
    • Objection to convenience store – whilst GPRA recognises the need for a convenience store to minimise traffic journeys in such a large community, it queries the need given alternative provision in nearby areas and is concerned about the impact on existing local businesses
    • Community Hall proposals inadequate for size of community – the GPRA notes that in not building a purpose-built community hall Linden homes has saved itself significant cost but agrees with the submission that the current sales suite is a more desirable facility given its location. It will only succeed as a community hub, however, if proper cafe facilities are installed
    • No specific provision for care/location of historical artefacts – the site is rich with historical artefacts including an old Chichester City limit stone and a rare example of the shelters used by Graylingwell patients on the airing grounds. One such example has already been destroyed. The GPRA requests that in determining the outcome of the planning application, they insist that provision is made for the preservation and display of artefacts connected with the site (in line with the Heritage Lottery Project on Graylingwell’s history) We suggest the farmhouse currently earmarked as a pub is the most appropriate location for such a museum/gallery
    • Location of play area – agreed
    • Loss of trees (272) –including the previous objections regarding destruction of mature trees on Chapel Green, this defoliation in a supposedly green development is wholly unacceptable
    • It is also noted, and shall be part of the submission to the council, that many recent residents feel that mis-representation has occurred in that Linden Homes representatives have told respective residents that certain developments will not occur (eg. Chapel Green). Whilst this will be the responsibility of individual residents to pursue, the GPRA believes that their general submission of objections should reflect a disappointment that the new proposals are a significant move away from that promised by Linden Homes in their sales literature
    1. CCDT update

    Jane Haskins outlined proposals for junior ambassadors. It was agreed that the Young Ambassadors would make a presentation to the next meeting. Linden Homes were thanked for their prompt action in deterring travellers from occupying Chapel Green. The requirements for the Summer Garden Party were discussed and it was agreed that two tables and four chairs would be needed. Sue Cressey would provide the banner and the Chairman and Treasurer would provide cover for the stall.

    Requests for additional parking facilities (due to weddings at the chapel etc) would be considered on a case by case basis.

    1. Grange Management Update

    Works on fencing and re-positioning of bollard lantern was agreed. It was re-iterated that every household faced additional costs if vandalism continued.

    1. AOB

    Litter continues to be a problem by North Lodge. The chairman will speak to Grange Management as to why this is not being covered.

    Mike Pickering (resident) had raised several issues with the committee. On the issue of the veracity of the press article in the Chichester Observer regarding the master plan, the issue of speeding on the highways, and the treatment of Japanese Knotweed. Mike was invited by the committee to pass on an appropriate draft letter to each appropriate authority. This would then be endorsed by the committee. All present noticed the seriousness of the knotweed problem and noted that Mike’s role in the community garden made him ideally placed to pursue the treatment of the problem with the builders.

    The Chairman asked all committee members to ensure that the AGM and the future of the GPRA be discussed regularly with all contacts, particularly as some committee members would be retiring. There will, at least, be vacancies for secretary, treasurer and web master due to incumbents relinquishing their posts.

    1. Date of next meeting

    July 3rd 7pm Cabin