70

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held at Ashow Village Club, Ashow on

Thursday 1st December 2016 at 7.00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman – Cllr R Hancox, Councillors Mrs H Fryer, Mrs J. Mackenzie, District

Councillor N. Harrington

APOLOGIES: Councillor Mr J Astle, County Councillor W Redford, District Councillor P

Redford

Two members of the public were present.

73. Minutes

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 10th November 2016 were signed by the

Chairman.

74. Matters Arising from Minutes

Casual Vacancy

Cllr R Hancox indicated that no applications have been received for this post. It was decided

that the Council would hopefully be able to co– opt two councillors at the January meeting.

If no applications are received in the New Year then the Council will consider producing a

leaflet to advertise the vacancy and visiting residents in order to create some interest in the

role.

Local Plan

Cllr H Fryer reported that she and Cllr MacKenzie will be attending a Planning

Representation on 7th December, concerning developments at Warwick University,

Stoneleigh Park and Abbey Park. Cllr Fryer will report any news from this meeting at the

next Ordinary Parish Council meeting on 12th January. It was decided that the letter which

is to be formally sent to Tracey Darke and Dave Barber will be drafted after further

discussion at the Parish Council meeting on 12th January.

Cllr J Mackenzie asked about the current status of the Community Group, and suggested

that it was not appropriate for the Council to delegate planning issues to a local group that

does not have a constitution. Cllr Hancox agreed that the Parish Council need confirmation

as to who is part of the Community Group. Cllr Hancox will write to the Community

Group to ask for feedback regarding their input into the latest developments regarding the

Local Plan, and to query any future plans they may have.

Cllr Fryer suggested that the Parish Council write to Ian Kemp to ask that the Council could

attend a Traffic meeting on 13th December. Cllr H Fryer proposed that she composed a letter

to this effect, which was seconded by Cllr MacKenzie.

71

Standing orders were suspended at this point during the meeting, as the Council asked a

member of the public for further information on The Community Group.

Mr R Fryer reported that The Community Group is a group of like- minded people who are

looking at the Local Plan and sharing information. Mr Fryer also confirmed that The

Community Group provide the Campaign for Rural England with any information they

require.

Standing orders were re-instated.

HS2

Cllr H Fryer reported that she attended a meeting on 23rd November to discuss planning

policy. HS2 are expecting to put in a formal planning application in the New Year. Cllr

Fryer reported that the Local Authority will have two months to consider the planning

application, however Parish Councils will only have ten days to respond.

It was decided that the Parish Council’s method of response to these queries must be

discussed at the January meeting. Cllr Fryer proposed that she draft a mandate which we be

reviewed by the Clerk prior the January Meeting. An acceptance of this mandate will be an

Agenda Item for January.

75. Reports

Police Report

Vehicle Crime: Between 1900hrs Wednesday 12-OCT-2016 and 0910hrs Thursday 13-OCT-

2016 unknown offender(s) caused damage to a blue ‘58’ plate BMW 3 series that was parked

on the driveway of a residential property on Birmingham Road, Stoneleigh.

County Councillor W Redford

a) B4155 at Ashow. The footpath along the B4115 has been cleared. Cllr J Mackenzie

reported that actually the footpath has not been completely cleared and confirmed that she

has asked Cllr W Redford to re visit the site

b) Rocky Lane, Ashow. Slow sign on road. This is still outstanding. Cllr W Redford shall be

chasing this up as a priority as it been 4 months since he reported it.

72

c) Grove lane, Ashow. Rocks on verges. This has been passed to highways to make contact

with residents requesting them to remove them from verges fronting their property.

District Councillor N Harrington

This report was deferred as Cllr N Harrington had not yet arrived.

76. Public Session

Mr D Ellwood reported that he feels there has been some inconsiderate parking in Church

Lane. It was agreed that this could be mentioned in the next edition of the Stoneleigh

Newsletter.

Mr Ellwood also reported that The Community Group has never been a formal group, and

confirmed that it has no formal representation from the Parish Council.

Mr Ellwood also queries the S106 agreement of planning application W/16/0239 and

suggested that JLR have not given the required 21 day notice period in which to change

Condition of Clause 13 which states that ‘the first 10,000 metres of floor space shall be

occupied by JLR’. JLR now wish to change this condition to show that only the first 8,500

metres of floor space shall be occupied by JLR. This is understood to be due to an inability

to provide enough power supply to occupy the 10,000 metres originally asked for.

Cllr H Fryer agreed that the planning application raised many points, and suggested that

these were discussed with District Councillor N Harrington when he arrives.

Cllrs H Fryer and J Mackenzie also reported that they will be attending a Planning

Consultation meeting on 6th December regarding this planning application.

73

77. Finance

a) Income/ Expenditure

Income as shown in minute 67a £41,473.97

Expenditure to 31st November 2016 (13,518.40)

------------

£27,955.48

=====

b) Bank Reconciliation

At Co-operative Bank plc, Birmingham

A/C 6101168500 (Current) £486.62

A/C 6101168550 (Instant Access) £1,061.64

A/C 6101168556 (14 Day Deposit) £26,407.22

£27,955.48

c) Cheques paid in November

301305 H Fryer (Flowers) £27.00

301306 J Mackenzie (Food and wine) £106.20

301307 S Windridge (Salary & expenses) £813.83

d) The precept was circulated to Councillors for consideration before the January meeting

74

78. Planning

New Planning Applications

W/16/2100 - The Old Parsonage, Church Lane, Stoneleigh, Coventry, CV8 3DN

Single storey rear extension

The Parish Council require further information on this and will draft and confirm

comments by 13th December

W/16/2024 Bericote Road Student Residences

Council objects

W/16/0239 Land to the north and south of the A45 (between Festival andTollbar

junctions) and land at the A45/Festival Roundabout, the A46/Tollbar Roundabout and at

the junctions of the A444 with the A4114/Whitley Roundabout.

Description: Comprehensive development comprising demolition of existing structures and

the erection of new buildings to accommodate offices, research & development facilities and

light industrial uses (Use Class B1), hotel accommodation (Use Class C1), car showroom

accommodation, small scale retail and catering establishments (Use Classes A1, A3, A4

and/or A5), new countryside park, ground modelling work including the construction of

landscaped bunds, construction of new roads/footpaths/cycle routes, remodelling of

junctions on the existing highway network, associated parking, servicing and landscaping

(Outline application discharging access with all other matters reserved).

Council objects. Cllrs will be attending the meeting on 6th December regarding this

application.

W/16/2032 The Barn adjacent Park Farm House, Stareton Lane, Stoneleigh CV8 2LL

Retrospective removal of car port and conversion to habitable space

The Parish Council require further information on this and will draft and confirm

comments by 20th December

75

Progress of Planning Applications

W/16/1856 - Dial House Farm, Ashow Road, Ashow, Kenilworth

Erection of a single storey rear extension and enclosed front porch

Council is neutral. Comments posted on 25th November

W/16/1958/LB 1 Vicarage Road, Stoneleigh, Coventry, CV8 3DH

Removal of remaining flat ceiling in kitchen and replace with vaulted ceiling with additional

support beams. 2. Installing Velux window in kitchen. 3. Removal of remaining ceiling in

lounge to expose original beams 4. Widen fireplace and install lintel and installing new

multi-fuel stove (Retrospective)

Council is neutral.

79. Report from District Councillor N Harrington

a) Planning application W/16/0239. Cllr Harrington confirmed that he and Cllr P Redford

will be objecting to the application at the meeting on 6th December, on the basis that the

change in the required number of square metres demonstrates a lack of need and urgency

for the development, and so the application should be delayed until the completion of the

local plan.

b) Cllr Harrington reports that he would also like some clarity regarding Coventry Airport.

If the airport ceases to function as an airport will the site be used for housing? This will be

raised at the planning meeting on 6th December.

c) Cllr Harrington reports that he has written to Gary Fisher, Tracey Darke and Chris Elliot

regarding the provision of housing for Coventry at the Kings Hill Development. They will

have ten days to respond.

Cllr H Fryer asked Cllr Harrington whether the Council should ask any adjacent Parish

Councils to comment on planning application W/16/0239. Cllr Harrington confirmed that

The Community Group and Bubbenhall Council will be commenting.

76

80. Correspondence

The Clerk reported that the CPRE has written to ask whether the Parish Council wishes to

renew its subscription to the CPRE. This was agreed by all Councillors

The Clerk also reported that the SLCC has written to ask whether the Parish Council wishes

to renew its subscription. This was agreed by all Councillors

81. Questions to the Chairman

Cllr Hancox reported that due to the resignation of Cllr Sue Mallone, a new Trustee is

required for the Leigh Educational Foundation. Cllr J Mackenzie volunteered to take on the

role, and was proposed by Cllr H Fryer, This was seconded by Cllr Hancox. The Clerk is to

find out the dates of the Foundation meetings for 2017.

Cllr Hancox reported that HS2 has asked him to complete a questionnaire regarding the

information the Parish Council has received from HS2. Cllr Hancox will complete the

questionnaire as requested.

Cllr H Fryer has sent a letter as requested to HS2 regarding her experience of the HS2

meeting in July. (This is annexed at pages 77 -80)

Cllr Harrington reports that the process for applying for funding from HS2 is now open.

Cllr Hancox will write to Debbie Prince to request funding.

Cllr Hancox reports that the County Council have not received the letter requesting a bypass

for Stoneleigh. This was re sent on 29th November. (The letter is annexed at page 81)

82. Closure

The business having been completed the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.14 p.m.

Chairman

77

Stoneleigh and Ashow

Joint Parish Council

Clerk: Mrs S Windridge

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Hybrid Bill Petitioning process In response to an invitation from the House of Commons and House of Lords Private Bills Committees, these comments are submitted by Hazel Fryer, Jane Mackenzie and Robin Fryer who presented petitions on behalf of Stoneleigh & Ashow Joint Parish Council.

How should the process of depositing petitions be modernised?

The process for petitioning is arcane and outside the experience of ordinary constituents. It requires time and commitment to negotiate the system. This acts as a barrier for petitioners. Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council prepared for their Hybrid Bill Petition by asking volunteers to attend two events on the HS2 petitioning process organised by Warwickshire County Council. Volunteers also attended a briefing at the Palace of Westminster arranged by the Secretary to the Select Committee. The purpose was to understand the process and report back to the Parish Council. A simplified procedure and an explanation of the aspects that are possible to petition to alter and those which are outside the process would be helpful. Members of our community tried to follow the online proceedings on Parliamentary TV but the petition presentation used information not available on screen which it was impossible to see. Attempting to understand the proceedings without the accompanying maps and images being discussed was confusing. A split screen or alternate images showing the visual information would assist public understanding of the issues. The current presentation method is a barrier to encouraging greater public understanding and should be improved. The use of electronic communication would simplify the petitioning process and reduce the work involved and the costs for all concerned. In our experience the submission of final presentation information by email prior to the Select Committee appearance worked well on both occasions and the Parliamentary staff dealing with our petition PowerPoint presentation were particularly helpful. .

Would guidance on cases where locus is likely or unlikely to apply be helpful?

78

Should there be different processes for determining rights of audience ('locus standi'), such as a written or

partly written process?

The information on Locus standi should be clearer with guidance on the conditions that apply. The present process is difficult as the petitioner is not aware whether they will be challenged until late in the process. They have to state their case to the Promoter’s legal agent. Application inspected by nominated representatives of the Select Committee with only the written appeals against rejection by petitioners seen and decided by the Select Committee or the Court of Referees would be a more efficient system.

How can petitioner representation, including by agents, be improved and simplified?

The requirement for a Roll A or B agent is not clear. All petitioners should be able to make their present to the Select Committee if their petitions are accepted by Parliament. The Promoter appears to take more account of the legal representatives for organisations than community and individual petitioners. It was necessary for a parish Councillor to apply for Roll B Agent status for our second presentation. This was achieved with the help of our MP but the process did not seem to fulfil a real purpose that we could understand. The practice of making ‘corridor deals’ between the Promoter’s agents and the agent of private firms on the day of the hearing is not a transparent process. In fairness to the community and individual objectors this should be discouraged. A last minute deal between lawyers can undermine the petitions of other objectors. This happened within our Parish where a commercial landowner changed his position on the day of the hearing.

Should petitioning fees be changed or abolished? Are other petitioning expenses significant?

The fee cost of £20 is not significant when compared with the travel cost of delivering the petition, in our case delivery from the Midlands was approximately £105 for rail and taxi fares for the individual depositing the petition. The cost of attending briefing meetings plus two Select Committee hearings was several hundred pounds.

Should Members of Parliament be allowed to petition on behalf of their constituents and/or to represent

petitioners?

Our constituency MP was very helpful at the hearing in the House of Commons Select Committee but was refused an appearance in the House of Lords Committee. Members of Parliament should be allowed to partition if they choose to do so and when there are circumstances that justify their appearance. There should not be an expectation for MPs to appear as the number of petitions in an affected area may overwhelm the MP as it is likely that many of the petitioners in the constituency will request their MP to represent them.

How should Committees programme petitions so that arguments are heard fully and fairly by different

contributors, and with opportunities for pursuing different remedies, but without unnecessary repetition?

Our experience is that some petitions only express an opinion without the facts or remedies that were required. Some petitions were outside the terms of the narrow remit of the petitioning process. One petition we heard examined in detail the individual cases for houses not included inside the compensation zone. This petition took more than two hours. The process would benefit from a separate Compensation Panel for these objections. To save time it would assist if a Scrutiny Sub-committee was established to examine petitions and remove those that added nothing to the understanding of the Select Committee or repeated objections previously heard. This would provide clear reasons for omitting any petition to

79

appear before the Select Committee. An independent Scrutiny Committee that was not composed of Committee MPs or the Promoters agents would be respected. Enforcement of an agreed time limit for a presentation would benefit all petitioners. We were advised that our petition should be succinct which we tried to achieve but were dismayed when other petitioners were allowed to make lengthy presentations. Concerning the question of unnecessary repetition, we were advised by Warwickshire County Council’s Roll A agent at a pre-hearing briefing that it was necessary to state the problem and suggest the remedy that was sought for every plea. The insistence on a clear ‘problem / remedy’ format would enable complaints to be grouped in advance of the Select Committee hearing and a range of solutions suggested on a spreadsheet to help the Commons and Lords Committees decide on any action. Understanding the issues relevant to the Hybrid Bill’s ancillary work was problematical, not because of any Parliamentary barrier but due to the reluctance of HS2 Ltd to carry out the instruction from Parliament to engage with the local communities. Their response was often delayed until it was too late to make any changes. Large projects with numbers of staff often suffer from project inertia early in any design process, when it is easier to resist alterations than to make improvements that cause inconvenience and cost. The failure of HS2 Ltd to discuss proposals with local communities resulted in a loss of local knowledge that would have enabled the Promoter to make alterations and save capital costs. In Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish the failure to understand the topography and local conditions has greatly inflated the cost of the work. The Parish petition was presented by an Accountant, a Landscape Architect and an architect at meetings with HS2 and at the Select Committee. Lack of preparation by HS2 resulted in a lack of understanding of local conditions which resulted in missed opportunities to save capital costs for the work. Spending money on the process rather than the implementation is not producing the best results for the country. Providing the Promoter for a hybrid bill with clear and guide lines to follow to ensure good public participation would be beneficial to the process and reduce the capital cost.

Should programming of petitioner appearances be handled by area or by type of petitioner – for example,

should local authorities all appear first?

Providing a hierarchy for hearings with the Regional Authorities, the County, City, District, Parish Councils and individuals will result in a fragmented presentation which is more difficult to follow. It will also result in attention being given to the major Councils to the detriment of Parish Councils and individual petitioners. The result of a hierarchy system is that the people directly affected would have the least importance in the petitioning process and when Local Authorities choose not to petition their community are likely be at a greater disadvantage. . We suggest that petitions should be heard by area in a geographical sequence to assist the Select Committee to follow the difficulties in any section of the works because many pleas are likely to have a common base in any parish. As petitioners we represented our local community of 550 persons and also to a limited extent the residents of the District as our Local Council declined to appear but officers did check and support our petition. The right to appear before our Parliament’s Select Committees is an important part of our democratic freedom. How can petition hearings work better? Ensuring that hearings work better presents a problem as the promoter employs expensive and competent representation by QCs to oppose petitioners and all pleas are treated as

80

hostile. This has the effect of unnerving many potential witnesses. Our own District Council withdrew from appearing because their legal advice indicated their staff could be subject to hostile examination before the Select Committees by the Promoter’s QC and the Council did not wish this to happen. A hostile response to our petition did not occur when we made our petition to the House of Commons but it did occur when we presented our petition to the House of Lords. The latter examination illustrated a possible problem in the petitioning system as we found that HS2’s QC was using out of date information in response to our plea and there does not appear to be a procedure for a follow up submission by petitioners to refute inaccurate material laid before the MPs/Lords by the Promoter who inadvertently misleads the Select Committees.

How can strength of support for petitions be demonstrated without requiring appearances by

In the circumstance where a petitioner was not presented by a Council or firm but a person or group of residents. The strength of petition could be demonstrated by allowing individuals to associate with the plea and supporters of a Petition could co-sign and provide their contact details to allow verification.

Currently written representations are made by objectors and sent to the Promoter of the Bill who then makes a written response. It would be fair to have an objector’s response because the Promoter’s reply often misunderstands the objection due to lack of detailed knowledge of the area in question. Providing this information to a Scrutiny Committee would enable them to identify written submissions that the MPs/Lords should see and would prevent the Promoter using the unfair procedure of replying a few days before a hearing. When we presented our petition to the House of Lords HS2 Ltd presented a reply on the day before the hearing which was used by the Promoter’s QC in his reply in to the Select Committee.

Has there been a difference in the process of petitioning the Lords' Committee and petitioning the Commons'

Committee? If so, what was different?

There was no difference between the way we were treated at the Commons and Lords Select Committee. Both Select Committees were helpful and friendly but the Lords Select Committee was a little more formal. At the first Commons Committee hearing our Member of Parliament met us, attended the hearing and was allowed to address the Select Committee after all his constituents had finished. This was not allowed at the House of Lords Select Committee hearing and we were more isolated. The attitude of the Promoter’s QC was different in the two sessions; polite and restrained before the Commons Committee but far more confrontational before the Lords Committee. We would have been intimidated if we not had previous experience of meetings in which this technique had been used.

81

Cllr W Redford & Cllr P Butlin

Warwickshire County Council

25th October 2016

Dear Sirs

We were advised by our County Councillor Wallace Redford that consideration will now be

given to the creation of a bypass for Stoneleigh.

Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council welcomes this news as a solution to the traffic

problem through the village of Stoneleigh and at the Parish Council meeting on Thursday

13th October 2016 the Parish Council unanimously resolved to support this initiative.

We understand that no information as to possible routes is available at this stage and we

would request that we and our District and County Councillors are included in future

discussions about the options available.

Whilst this Parish Council fully supports the idea of a by-pass for Stoneleigh we also want to

see some short term measures implemented to address the current issues we face on a daily

basis.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Hancox

Chairman of Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council