Author Archives: webknaphill

Should Knaphill develop a Neighbourhood Plan?

Leave a reply

Residents in Knaphill are feeling pretty abused when it comes to planning decisions. We’ve all felt Woking Borough Council’s approach is skewed at times, never seeming to reflect popular opinion or taking cognisance of what the locals are saying. So is it time to gain a larger influence over our village development by creating a Neighbourhood Plan?

What is a Neighbourhood Plan?

It’s a method of a local area to have more control over the ‘what and how’ is developed. It must be established and developed by a local town or parish council or a neighbourhood forum and must not contravene certain regulations or the Local Plan / strategy already created [by in this case Woking Borough Council]. For example, the community can have more of a say in choosing where you want new homes, shops and offices to be built; have your say on what new buildings should look like and help grant planning permission for the new buildings you want to see go ahead.

Who’s doing it?

Locally, Chobham (Surrey Heath) have submitted plans for their own Neighbourhood Plan and if you do a simple online search for ‘Neighbourhood Plan‘ then you get a whole raft of plans in various stages of development. This shows that communities throughout the country are taking this opportunity very seriously and having their say in the control of the area they live in.

Is it supported by regulations?

Absolutely. It was given the rubber stamp in the 2011 Localism Act and now has its own regulations – The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 – so this is a serious commitment from the government to give power to the community, something local councils are fairly bad at doing.

I want more information

Well there’s a raft of it out there! This is supported by government and local councils so expect a few hoops to jump through. These are a bureaucratic necessity and add to what is not the easy option for any community group considering the idea of a Neighbourhood Plan. I’ve provided some links below that I think are useful. There’s a couple of guides for both ward councillors and general information; I’ve also included WBC’s own page on neighbourhood planning as well as an independent information site complete with a forum area to discuss the issues at hand.

Make no mistake this would be a tough road ahead but the rewards can be great – imagine not having to go through the pains of Brookwood Farm again where all opinion is washed aside, of having plans submitted where you can actually have an proper say in the process!

Links

How is it funded?

The local community will have to pay for the preparation of their neighbourhood plan. However, the Government has awarded funding to four organisations with expertise in planning, to assist communities in developing Neighbourhood Plans. These organisations are:
The Prince’s Foundation – assistance with community engagement and finding local solutions to issues. www.princes-foundation.org
Locality – provision of support and networking to community groups through online resources and other networking tools, practical workshops and seminars, and tailored advice through a telephone advice line. www.locality.org.uk
The Royal Town Planning Institute – via the Planning Aid service, the provision of free, independent, impartial, professional planning advice to people who do not have the means to pay professional fees. Provision of support and training to local communities to influence and contribute to planning strategy, policy and decision-making at all levels.
www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid
The National Association of Local Councils in partnership with the Campaign to Protect Rural England – provision of basic information about the planning system via a website, phone line and publications. Establishing a programme of local events to inform the public and parish councils about how to influence local plans.
www.cpre.org.uk

Big question time – Who would do it for Knaphill?

Well there’s the rub. This will take a group of like minded people to come together and represent the interests of the whole village diligently and with constant engagement and communication and don;t forget there would have to be a referendum for Knaphill to adopt this approach.

Personally I do not see the Knaphill Residents Association (KRA) as being the body to accomplish the job although there should certainly be representation made. So who else would like to do the job?

Here’s the question for you – are you interested?

 

 

 

15 High Street already causing problems

Leave a reply

Pandemonium has descended on Knaphill High Street as the first full day of construction begins at the old Cliftons site.

As noted by Phil Stubbs,

Five large trucks arrived in the village with the objective of removing earth from the Clifton’s site. Given the size of the site only one truck could actually enter the grounds and the other four trucks were parked in the High Street. One truck was parked half on the pavement and half on the road outside 22 High Street (Take Away), the second truck was parked on the zigzag lines at the pedestrial crossing outside Barclays and the third and fourth truck were taking up the whole of the bus lay-by outside Anchor Crescent.

Despite being reported to the police on their 101 number, only the truck on the zig zags was of concern to them and the others were a civil matter. Strictly this is true but it’s pretty obvious that they’re all part and parcel of the same issue so in my opinion this is a very blinkered view to take. That said, a car was to be despatched as one became available.

This is the first full day of construction and the Council plus the police have to firmly lay down the ground rules. Will they?

UPDATE from Phil 9.30am

I have just taken a call from Surrey Police, they have visited High Street and after talking to the site manager the police have agreed that one truck can wait in the bus lay-by but that there should be no other trucks on the High Street. The reason for allowing one truck is that the police were informed that it will only takes 10 to 15 minutes to load a truck and they want to complete the task as soon as possible. The contractor has been told that if they do not stick to the instructions given to them this morning they will be booked.

Watch this space?

Update 8/3/1315 High street construction

Well we didn’t have to wait long! Furious residents have complained to WBC and councillors about the contracting company’s blatant disregard for residents and the practicalities and legalities of getting large vehicles to the site. This has been exacerbated by doing so in rush hour traffic.

There’s a picture (awaiting permissions) as a good example – of a lorry reversing into the site on the pedestrian crossing, with a bus trying to pass, and an HGV waiting in the opposite lay-by. As has been pointed out – is this the future of all deliveries given the arrangements approved by the planning committee?

No improvement for traffic until after 2020?

2 Replies

At a meeting of Surrey County Councils Local Committee on the 06 March a paper was presented by Surrey Highways Authority on the congestion around the Brookwood Crossroads and adjoining roads. It is a pity that this debate was not held before the Planning Committee had to vote on the development on Brookwood Farm.

In presenting their paper SCC stated that as the major work programme from now until 2019 had been agreed they recommended that the congestion on the A322 should be considered as part of the review of major road schemes in 2015 for the post 2019 programme. This means that any major scheme designed to reduce the congestion on the Bagshot Road would not commence until 2020 at the earliest. This would be 3 years after the completion of all the new houses on Brookwood Farm and the opening of the new school.

The plan from SCC was vigorously challenged by the KRA, Brookwood Residents Association and the majority of Councillors who spoke during the debate. Cllr. J. Kingsbury put forward a suggestion that the in-depth study of the A322 and surrounding roads should start this spring. The study will take 18 months to complete and cost £50,000. Officers from Surrey Highways took the request away and will respond in the coming weeks.

One suggestion in the paper presented by Surrey Highways was that for short journey’s that is a journey of up 5 miles residents should consider walking or cycling rather than using a car. Phil Stubbs asked if this meant a parent living in Knaphill with a child attending the school in Bisley should walk or cycle the journey Knaphill/Bisley four times a day. Or the Brookwood resident from Brookwood going shopping at Sainsbury’s should take their bike rather than the car.

Peer Productions have their pants on fire!

Leave a reply

‘Pants On Fire’ & ‘Mobile Phone Show’

Award-winning Peer Productions are back with two new youth theatre shows which will charm, delight and make you reconsider your belief in mobile phones and cupcakes. Woking’s biggest youth theatre are excited to bring to you Jim Cartwright’s ‘Mobile Phone Show’ and ‘Pants on Fire’ by Nina Lemon in an epic double-bill at the Rhoda McGaw Theatre, Woking from 14th – 16th March.

Young Jennifer June’s world is turned upside down as she begins to “ditch the truth and improvise with teeny weeny little white lies” in the unconventional cautionary tale, ‘Pants On Fire’. This charming musical performed by the Junior Youth Theatre will have your hearts melted, your spirits lifted, and your suspicion of cupcakes indefinitely raised.Peer Productions

Then join the Senior Youth Theatre for Jim Cartwright’s (The Rise and Fall of Little Voice, Road) ‘Mobile Phone Show’, part of National Theatre Connections, as we gain an insight into how technology has changed the lives of young people. Is it confining our communication? Or is it a tool to evolve our creativity? Is true love destroyed by mobile phones? And what if there were an app to mend a broken heart? Sit back and enjoy the spellbindingly complex production pull your imagination in ways you’ll never expect.

Co-Artistic Director of Peer Productions Nina Lemon said “Peer Productions Youth Theatre have pulled together to create two incredible shows and I am proud of all their efforts. I am confident that this will be a spectacle to behold and a great evening out for all ages. And as always, I’m blown away by what the young people can achieve.”
Performances take place at 7pm on 14th, 15th and 16th March at the Rhoda McGaw Theatre in Woking. Tickets are £12/ £10 concessions with a special discount of £7 for all those under 19 years old. Tickets are available from www.ticketsource.co.uk/peerproductions or by calling 01483 476825.

Editors note –

If you haven’t been to one of Peer Productions performances before then make the time – the last one I saw was excellent, very much a top class performance

 

Ground clearance at Almond Villas

Leave a reply

Walking through the village today I have noticed ground clearance work at the Almond Villas site in Broadway.

Although outline planning permission was given a while back, no definite plans have been seen or made available and it was our understanding that such a development would require detailed information to be presented. See our old posting here https://knaphill.org/2012/02/almond-villas-site/

Curiously, there is still a For Sale sign up but maybe the trust who own / owned the land are jumping the gun a bit in preparation.

We’ve contacted Jenny Jackson at the planning dept at WBC for a bit more information and will update as soon as possible.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Leave a reply

I’ve just received an email from WBC for a consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that I would encourage residents to look at. The site for the information on the CIL is here – http://www.woking2027.info/infrastructure

and WBC information page is here – http://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/policy/ldf/cil

The letter is as follows –

Dear Sir or Madam,

CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Woking Borough Council has decided to adopt Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as its primary means for securing developer contributions towards infrastructure provision in the Borough. CIL is a standardised levy that is charged to new development for the purposes of raising funds to deliver infrastructure to support new development. The provision of infrastructure has implications for people who live and work in and visit the Borough. In this regard, the Council values your involvement to ensure that the rates set for the Charging Schedule are set at the right level.

A key stage towards the adoption of CIL is the publication of a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for consultation. Your views are therefore being sought on all aspects of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule to enable the Council decide whether the rates are set at reasonable levels.

The consultation period is between 15 February and 2 April 2013 and you are encouraged to send any representations that you may have.

The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is available for inspection at the following venues:

Woking Borough Council, Civic Offices, Gloucester Square,Woking, GU21 6YL. Monday to Friday 9am – 4.45pm.
Woking, Byfleet,West Byfleet and Knaphill libraries. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk for address and opening times of the libraries.
On the Council’s website www.woking.gov.uk

Comments can be e-mailed to planning.policy@woking.gov.uk or posted to: The Planning Policy Team Woking Borough Council Civic Offices Gloucester Square GU21 6YL

If you have any questions on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Planning Policy Team on 01483 743871.

The Council has also published a number of documents that has been used as evidence to inform the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. This includes:

· Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study;
· Community Infrastructure Levy – Topic Paper on Infrastructure Funding Gap;
· Map illustrating where differential charging rates will apply; and
· Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft Screening Statement.

Copies of these documents can also be inspected at the deposit venues set out above and on the Council’s website.

Next stages of the adoption process
Your comments on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule will be analysed and taken into account in preparing a Draft Charging Schedule. There will be a further opportunity for you to comment on the Draft Charging  Schedule before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination.

Comments received at this stage together with the Draft Charging Schedule will be submitted for Independent Examination sometime at the beginning of 2014. Subject to the recommendations of the Inspector, it is anticipated that the Charging Schedule will be adopted by April 2014.

It is important to note that until CIL is adopted, the Council will continue to use Planning  Obligations to secure developer contributions.
Yours sincerely,
Ernest Amoako
Planning Policy Manager
For further information please contact Ernest Amoako on 01483 743427 (Direct Line) or
Email ernest.amoako@woking.gov.uk
CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Letter

 

 

Brookwood Farm update

1 Reply

The majority of you will know that on the 29th January the Councillors who make up the Planning Committee approved the application from Cala Homes to build 297 dwellings on the land at Brookwood Farm. I came away from the meeting both angry and disappointed.

Angry because the Council Officers totally ignored those people who current live around Sparvell Road, Oak Tree Road and Coresbrook Way. It is these residents who will suffer the most from the increased traffic, its related noise and air pollution.

All the Councillors who spoke during the debate expressed reservations with the data included in the Planning Officers report on traffic levels. Although there was unanimity amongst the Councillors for a deferment once the Deputy Chief Executive, Head of Legal Services and Head of Planning applied verbal pressure on the Councillors not to vote for a deferment and accept the plan the majority caved in. All those Councillors not directly connected with Knaphill or Brookwood fell under the pressure and voted against a deferral and for the plan.

So yes disappointed with the fact that the Councillors did not stand by the views they expressed when they spoke for a deferment.

Why was so much pressure exerted on the Councillors? I believe there were two main reasons, first the Council have set themselves a target of 4,964 new dwellings between 2010 and 2027 (an annual average of 292 per annum). Secondly money, around two thirds of the land to be developed is owned by Woking Borough Council and that will now be sold to Cala Homes. That money will go to pay off a loan that the Council took out to pay for the work that was carried out in the Hoe Valley close to the Leisure Centre and Westfield Avenue.

Why were Councillors seeking a deferment? The Planning Officers report, the main document that is being debated and voted on, is only produced a week prior to the meeting and therefore there is not a lot of time to take on board all the detail that goes into a major development like Brookwood Farm. Let me put into context, in the past the Planning Committee deferred to a second meeting the applications to develop the Clifton’s site in the centre of the village and the extension to Sainsbury’s in Redding Way. Brookwood Farm is a much bigger development than either of the above and therefore why was the Deputy Chief Executive so opposed to the Councillors deferring a decision until they fully understood the proposal that the Planning Department and Surrey Highways were putting forward? That is a question for Woking Council to answer.

Unless a Councillor has been following the debate since the application was submitted last April then they rely on the Planning Officers report being accurate and objectively cover all aspects of the application. This report failed to achieve that objective.

For example The Planning Officers report states that there will only be a 33% increase in traffic levels going down Sparvell Road towards Bagshot Road between todays figure and the traffic levels once the development is completed. In words of the County’s Road Planning Manager an average of one additional vehicle per minute during peak times. Compare that with the figures in the Transport Assessment, a report produced by consultants as part of the preparation for the production of the Planning Officer’s report. The Transport Assessment shows an increase of 127% in the morning peak and 133% in the evening peak. The Councillors, and ourselves, wanted a deferment so that those differences could be investigated.

Another example of where the Planning Officers got it wrong. With reference to the length of the queuing traffic from the Brookwood traffic lights back up the Bagshot Road. The report states;-

‘The applicant’s Transport Assessment acknowledges that Bagshot Road is already heavily trafficked and that queuing develops, particularly at Brookwood Crossroad during peak hours to the extent that occasionally, southbound queue at the crossroads block the Redding Way signal.’

What a complete understatement, the queue is regularly beyond The Broadway never mind Redding Way.

There is a legal requirement that where a developer wants to build close to a heavily congested road they have to make recommendations on changes that will not significantly add to that congestion. In April 2012 I along with other representatives of local residents associations plus a number of Councillors met with Iain Reeve, Assistant Director Strategy, Transport & Planning and Greg Devine, Road Planning Manager both from Surrey County Council. We asked whether they believed the traffic management plan proposed by Cala Homes would somehow mean that the additional traffic would not add to the congestion. The response was that the proposed changes to the traffic light systems were unproven and that in their opinion would not meet the expectations of the developer. So what has changed between April 2012 and January 2013? As far as I know Cala Homes have not changed their proposed modification to the traffic lights systems. Maybe the KRA should invite Mr Reeve to another meeting so he can explain the change in the position of his department.

People have been asking where can we go from here. We the residents do not have the right of appeal. The only people who have the right of appeal to a decision made by the Planning Committee are those who submit the application. So if the Councillors on the Planning Committee had rejected Cala’s application Cala Homes could appeal and that would have gone to a Planning Inspector and probably a public inquiry. I cannot see how, following a public inquiry a Planning Inspector could have come up with a worse result than the one we got on the 29th.

This does not mean that the KRA will give up the fight, we have already asked Woking’s Head of Planning to explain the difference in figures for traffic in Sparvell Road.

We will keep you informed of any information that we are able to obtain.

The State of Planning

3 Replies

The plans for Brookwood Farm have been passed. Rightly or wrongly many residents feel abused by ‘the system’ and feel that the council has not performed their duties as well as they should have. This article is more of a collection of thoughts than a narrative of failings so any official reading through should not take overt offence but do feel free to leave comment.

Housing targets

We all know the government has set planning targets for each and every council in the land; these targets have to be met which requires new homes to be built. In the south east the demands are great – it’s a desireable place to live and housing costs are high but the landscape is pretty built up already. What green space there is is normally hard to get permission for building on and decent sized brownfield sites are hard to come by. People may disagree with the targets set both by government and borough councils but they are here to remain. There is a whole other argument as to the rationale behind the targets but that is for another time and place.

Where to build?

This is one of the key questions; the crux of the matter really. Building a huge number of homes piecemeal is not cost effective and will not make up the numbers adequately. To build in numbers you either build flats upwards or you build houses outwards and it’s the latter that really grabs the landscape. This is why whenever you see new proposals there are usually a number of flats thrown in – it sweetens the deal by making up numbers that the council need desperately.

So what of locations and where to build? Woking is simply short of them and that is why plans such as those for Brookwood are passed. There is no single place where a lot of houses can be built and not upset the residents, and I believe the residents understand, although maybe not agree with, that.

Soon to be up is Moor Lane and I guarantee a similar situation is occurring as we in Knaphill have experienced. A similar situation was shown on BBC’s ‘The Planners’ on 30th January – large swathes of land given over to developers.

Many people mention money in respect of these developments. It’s true that the councils will make money, or at least in the case of Brookwood Farm they will but not being an accountant I can’t comment on huge debt versus submitted plans.

Planning capability

Understanding of planning regulations and the local differences up and down the country is a thankless job. No-one loves a council planner but they deal with what they’re told to deal with and do so with what they’re told to use. Recently, Woking Borough Council were recruiting a proportionately large number of staff, to my mind something resembling the whole department in number. Whether this had any bearing on the Brookwood decision is anyone’s guess but it won’t have helped and the reasons for needing so many new planning office staff at once raised a few eyebrows.

The biggest wonder is exactly what the procedures the council follow actually state as the documents appear not to allow for any amount of community or residential response to be taken into account. WBCs housing strategy 2011-2016 has a couple of stated aims of creating a strong community spirit… and a clean, healthy and safe environment. The planning process abjectly fails to do this and seems to act against it.

How can the planning process help build community when the process itself does not engage with the community as a part of the plan? Speaking of my own experience of dealing with the Brookwood plans – from conception the developer had 3 meetings with the public (only 1 of 3 were widely publicised); at these there were no actual plans to discuss, only concepts. The staff were provided by the developer and had no understanding of the area, demographic or planning in general. In fact the most useful and knowledgable member there was the landscaper! From the point of plans being submitted (i.e. when the planning process kicked in) it was statements all the way from WBC; letters announcing plans had been receieved, amended and finally going to the committee. Documents found online did not appear to give the entire view and some key documents were witheld from the public prior to the committee meeting, ‘awaiting decomposition’. Although the last letter from WBC invited everyone to speak, in fact only ONE person is allowed to have their say (presumably on everyones behalf) for a maximum 3 minutes. Hardly enough time to cough and say hello. The point here is that there is no real intent at community engagement, only getting the plans through the process. Mentions of ‘community’ have been just that, mentions and nothing of substance.

With regard to Brookwood Farm, major concerns remain with regard to traffic, roads, school places and medical cover provision. Houses must be built, but the infrastructure supporting them must be an imperitive also and no-one can see where this has been met. Records from a few years ago stated the maximum number of houses supportable on the A322 was 200, not the 300 now passed by committee. A new school being built adds to the problems in several ways, firstly it doesn’t provide enough spaces for pupils but it also necessitated another entrance to the development and even more traffic movements. Figures stated were predicted. We went and did our own number checking by actually counting the traffic movements and the predicted numbers are way off.

Being practical

The point above is that a more practical approach is required. Using untested traffic models and saying ‘we must have the houses’ is not good enough. If communities are to be built, as the council purport to be adamant about, then effort is required and a little bit of legwork wouldn’t go amiss either. If a lot of people are practically shouting ‘there is a traffic problem!’ then the chances are that there is a traffic problem, it’s not a trick. Go and count some cars. Get cold, get hot and get stuck in the fumes but make damned sure your numbers are fact-based and not pie in the sky. If the number of cars don’t stack up then do something about it – reduce the number of dwellings or find another way of reducing traffic. Telling people to walk or get the bus is not one of these. The planners, the councillors and the council all know there are issues when large scale plans are up for debate but precious little is done to allay their fears.

300 new homes and a school are to be built, so what about medical cover? What’s it like at the moment? Over-burdened? Well perhaps some form of mitigation there would be in order then; make it a part of the plans (not a condition, an actual part of the plan).

What of other plans submitted? 15 High Street (with flats above) is a good one. Does a village require 3 supermarkets in close proximity? Like a hole in the head. Common sense (not part of the planning process) would suggest that 3 huge players (Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Co-Op) in the retailing game would put local traders out of business. It is not competition, it is the death of community. A look at the plans also show that deliveries can only happen if certain parking spaces are vacant which should, surely, have raised the question of ‘is this really the best idea?’. Incidentally refuse deliveries for that development will have to be made via the kerbside, another point for questioning the plans.

The Point

There is no benefit to examining in detail any plan. The point to be made here was that the planning process is just plain wrong, for starters there is no planning involved, it’s just going through the motions.

To councils up the land –  More community engagement would go a very long way with most people and be demonstrating just a bit of thought over what the plans are showing you. Thinking of the resultant activity and impacts will inevitably lead you to a better solution. Some might call this actual planning – deliberate thought over the impact of intended changes for the betterment of an area and community. Show that you value the area you have stewardship over and the people within it, and not that you are really just after the cash reward.

A simple request goes out to all of you planners – start to think about what you’re doing and stop ticking boxes.

Last thought

Last year the taxpayer footed the £50m bill for the West Coast Main Line franchise bid going pearshaped after Sir Richard Branson questioned it. He was in a unique position of wealth and influence to do so and by that factor alone unearthed what people have known for some time – the process was wrong. Where’s Branson when you need him?

Brookwood Farm considered 29th January

10 Replies

The plans for development at Brookwood Farm are going to be put in front of the Planning Committee on the 29th January. It is highly likely, almost certain in fact, that these will be pushed through despite community concerns over traffic and a range of other issues that have categorically been ignored or marginalised.

There is now a requirement imposed by the LEA for a new school; the new school is designed for 210 new places but must accommodate 240 making the school unsuitable before it’s built. The school has resulted in the requirement for secondary road access via Sparvell Road, a quiet road never designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic.

It should be noted that although the requirements placed on the residential (Cala Homes) development by the LEA for a new school will result in even higher volumes of traffic, the plans for both residential and school will be treated separately. In essence this means that WBC planning can ignore any traffic analysis for a new school on the site in their consideration of the residential plans. They will then be obliged to pass plans for the school irrespective of the traffic analysis and the absolute linkage between the two proposals. It’s a ridiculous situation and frankly the thought that they have been split is specifically for this reason; if considered together as they should be (being wholly dependent upon each other) the proposals would never be passed.

As many people including us have pointed out many times, the traffic on the A322 is already at or over capacity; the junction at Redding Way/Bagshot Road cannot sustain an increase of the volume being proposed, despite what an unproven and highly questionable traffic model might claim, and that’s just for the residential development. The School will add a further predicted 182 daily arrivals and 179 departures. Presumably some people stay in school overnight. Interestingly, it has been predicted that a development of 300 dwellings will produce approximately 2/3 of the amount of traffic of the school. Some arbitrary assumptions of people walking to the school has been made to reduce the scary figures but even so the reports have stated that with the school the junction will be operating significantly over theoretical capacity.

Moving traffic outlet to further up the A322 (from Sparvell Road) is a folly as they must turn left. That is of course unless SCC are overturned on their assessment of it being unsafe to turn right? Perhaps a new roundabout will be placed there but that is pure speculation and would add to traffic disruption in it’s own right. So, in order to turn right from this exit, traffic must turn left and then right into Chobham Road, another residential street with a primary school (Knaphill Lower) and impassable at peak times due to parking and other traffic issues. Cars will either perform U-turns near Birds Grove or head all the way up and turn right through the village centre or turn left back toward the A322. MADNESS!!

Will the plans be approved? Almost certainly.

Recent traffic report can be seen here.

Committee meeting minutes November 2012

Leave a reply

Agreed Minutes 14 November 2012 – Kings House Coffee Shop

Attendees: – John Butler (chairman), Ann Mason, Rachel Varney, Martin Dunham, Andy Hills Tony Polak, Tony Hayes-Allen, Phil Stubbs.

 

Apologies: – Debbie Harlow, Neville Hinks

 

  1. Minutes of the last meeting

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2012 were approved.

 

  1. Matters Arising

The majority of action points are covered by the agenda items and will be covered under their own heading.

 

John raised the issue of publishing minutes on the web; he suggested that at the start of each meeting members will be asked if they agree to the last set of minutes being published on the KRA web site. The Committee agreed and the minutes of October meeting will be published.

 

  1. Projects
    1. Christmas decorations

Andy reported that everything was now in place to mount the brackets on those shops that have agreed to participate. The brackets will go up on Sunday 25 November. Christmas trees have yet to be ordered but Ten Acres have said there should be no problem.

 

Martin offered a box of time switches.

 

3.2 Litter collection

Ann and Tony Polak reported that around 15 volunteers turned up last Saturday for a mornings litter collection. In addition to general litter all the leaves were cleared from the lawn in front of the old library ready for the armistice service. Following the mornings work the majority of volunteers retired to Kings House for coffee and cakes.

 

The committee thanked Ann and Tony for organising the event.

 

It was agreed that litter collection should become an annual event.

 

    1. Other projects

The committee discussed the idea of a community BBQ during the early summer. This could be held on the Redding Way playing fields. Another site could be in front of the old library. For this to proceed we require a project leader.

 

 

  1. Village meeting

John reported that the preferred date was 7 March and all local Councillors had indicated that they were willing to participate. Rev.R.Sherlock had also confirmed his availability.

 

Phil reported that Holy Trinity hall was not available and it was suggested that we approach the Knaphill school.

 

It was agreed that we should invite Kate Wilson, WBC Neighbourhood Officer, to the meeting.

 

It was suggested that members of the public should be asked to submit questions prior to the meeting so that they can be grouped into topics.

 

It was agreed that we would start the advertising after Christmas.

 

Action points: – Phil to contact Knaphill School to see if their hall is available.

Phil to invite Kate Wilson to the meeting.

John to contact Mal Foster

 

  1. Brookwood Farm

On the actual development nothing new to report. According to a newspaper report the parent company of Cala Homes was to be sold by auction. No one knew of the implications for the Brookwood Farm development but one hopes it removes any pressure on the WBC by Cala Homes to bring the project at the Planning Committee.

 

6. Planning Issues

Phil reported that there were no new planning applications that he felt required a referral to the committee.

 

7. Membership Secretary Report

Ann stated that she would hope to start the renewal letters soon, Rachel offered Ann her assistance.

 

This year we did not distribute receipts except to new members. Tony Hayes-Allen felt that receipts should be sent out as a matter of courtesy.

 

8. Chairman’s report

John stated that his items had been covered by earlier agenda items.

 

9. Treasurer’s report

John reminded the Committee that they were still looking for a new treasurer.

 

10. Secretary’s report

Phil had circulated his report prior to the meeting.

 

11. Editor’s report

Andy reported that the December edition of the newsletter was coming together and that he had increased the number of advertisements.

 

Given the absence of Neville we did not have an up to date of the list of volunteers who were prepared to distribute the newsletter.

 

It was agreed that we would pay someone to deliver to the streets not covered by volunteers.

 

Action point: – John to make contact with Neville.

 

12. KRA Constitution changes

As a follow on from last month’s debate John tabled the following draft amendment:

 

After a short debate the draft a vote was taken nine members voted for the amendment, one against and one abstention.

 

John will now tidy up the wording.

 

It was confirmed that once the Committee was happy with the wording it would be circulated to members and voted on at the next AGM. This timetable meant that if any Committee member intended to stand at the May County Council election he or she could not stand as a representative of the KRA.

 

13. Any other business

13.1 AGM

It was suggested that the AGM should be held on 24 April, Phil will make contact with various churches to see if a suitable hall was available.

 

In the past it has been the practice to share the AGM evening with either some entertainment or an outside speaker. Martin suggested that the group of singers who entertained members of the local British Legion. Another suggestion was to invite local historian to talk about the historic buildings at the bottom of Knaphill.

Action points: – Martin to contact the singers.

Phil to contact Ian Wakeford

 

13.2 Local schools

Phil asked if it was appropriate for the KRA to keep a watching brief on local schools. He raised this against a background where some failing schools are being turned into academies and on new sites the Government were putting pressure on Local Authorities to move away from LEA controlled schools.

 

Committee agreed.

 

13.3 Open session at the start of KRA committee meetings

John suggested that when we hold the Committee meeting at Kings House we invite members of the public to meet members of the Committee between 7.00 and 8.00 and discuss subject of interest to them. We could suggest some topics.

 

The Committee members felt that this was a good idea.

 

14. Date of next meetings

16th January2013. Meeting to be held at Garibaldi starting at 7.00pm, meeting followed by refreshments.

 

6th February 2013. Meeting to be held at Kings House Coffee shop. Open house 7.00pm to 8.00pm followed by Committee meeting.

 

13th March 2013. Meeting to be held at Garibaldi starting at 7.45pm

 

Meeting closed