JPLG MEETING 16 January 2025 at 7.30 pm
Present:
APC:
Joan Pickett
Martin Stalley
Anne Raven
Megan Ellershaw
CPC:
Fi Rowlands
David Shaw
Steve Davies
Others:
Dai Rowlands (Chair)
John Hodder
Andrew Nash (for item 2)
1. Apologies for absence
Anne Perkins APC and Terry Young CPC.
2. Climate Change
2.1 Andrew Nash attended for the Climate Action Group (CAG) and opened by commenting that the wild fires in California provided a graphic illustration of the impact climate change can have, as indeed were the recent events in Valencia.
2.2 He gave an update covering:
• CAG had published an item in the Village News prior to Christmas with advice on energy costs.
• Andrew and Sue had completed their Carbon Literacy training; the training would still be available until April if councillors wished to take it up.
• Contact with PCC indicated that funding for projects was still be available; the scheme had been extended beyond December.
• Grant funding PCC of up to £150k per project could be available and examples could be installing electric charging points and perhaps solar panels on community buildings.
• A citywide Climate Action Forum had been suggested as a means of pooling ideas and resources.
• CAG would be developing further ideas for action and one option was to promote the use of solar panels and to outline the pros and cons.
3. Declarations of interest
None declared.
4. Action Points from previous meeting 29 February 2024
4.1 Action Point 10.2 – It was unclear whether action re-arranging for the village sign to be checked and arranging a quote for any necessary maintenance work had been attended to.
Action: Jenny Rice and both APC & CPC.
4.2 Action Point 10.3 – Action re-residents’ concerns about the continued noise of Sibson parachute planes. The problem might be resolved if the airfield is removed should the area be developed. This could be revisited should the problem recur later in the year.
4.3 – It was unclear whether the need to consider a longer term arrangement for the Scouts at the Cricket Club had been considered/actioned.
Action: CPC.
4.4 – The remaining action points had been attended to, are ongoing or are covered in agenda items below.
5. Ongoing review of JCAP actions
5.1 Paragraph 6.2.1.7 on page 35 of ANP and paragraph 6.2.1.6 on page 32 of CNP each state that the PC will look at the re-registration of land with common rights, which has not hitherto been reflected in the JCAP. The evidence map filed on each PC Website also makes specific reference to taking this forward as part of the JCAP. On the face of it there are separate registers for Common Land and Village Greens. Initial investigation shows that there are some areas within the parishes which seem to have been registered since 1983; these are listed on a DEFRA site at Cambridgeshire | Commons and Greens. There are five listed for each of Ailsworth & Castor.
5.2 As a Unitary Authority Peterborough City Council (PCC) would appear to be the current local Commons Registration Authority which administers the Registers of Common Land and Town or Village Greens and the function appears to fall to the Planning Committee. However, it was not clear from the PCC website where such Registers can be found. David Shaw suggested that he could speak with Neil Boyce and ask him to make appropriate enquiries of PCC.
Action: David Shaw/Neil Boyce.
5.3 The two NPs refer to the JCAP being reviewed every five years alongside the NP the JCAP is actually kept under continual review at these joint meetings. Changes put forward are then formally ratified at the following PC meetings. It was agreed that this should continue although the wording in the two NPs could perhaps remain as written.
5.4 Revisions to the existing items in the JCAP were suggested as follows:
JCAP 1.3/4.3 – Woodlands – 1.3 should be updated to reflect the latest planning applications lodged.
JCAP 1.6 – Common Land – A new item would be added to the JCAP for the two PCs to take things forward and to check the current position regarding the registration of common land in the parishes and to take forward re-registration as necessary.
JCAP 3.2 – School – A revision to reflect the CPC view that there should be a permanent building at the school rather than a renewed temporary building to secure the longer term needs of the
School was agreed.
JCAP 3.4 – Village Shop – No change; see item 7 below.
JCAP 4.5 – Litter Picks – It was suggested that the need for a litter pick should be considered alter in the year.
Action: John Hodder will update relevant JCAP items and circulate a draft for PC approval.
6. Neighbourhood Plans
6.1 Woodlands
The Care Home had made a revised planning application to alter the conversion of the existing building. Changes to the plans for the sporting facilities had also been lodged and objections remained. No proposals had yet come forward from the tennis club.
6.2 Peterborough Local Plan
There had been some delay and the draft was now expected in March. The consultation period could therefore potentially clash with local elections.
6.3 Points covered at the meeting with the PCC adviser on 18 November are annexed. David Shaw had since been in contact with her regarding the proposed policy change to the Castor NP and was still awaiting her reply. He would chase this up and also consider the wider revisions needed to the two NP Reviews in light of the discussions and point 5.3 above. He would also consider how best to prepare the revised documentation needed when the reviews are submitted.
Action: David Shaw to revise the two NP reviews and consider how best to prepare the documentation needed to finalize and submit the reviews.
7. Village Shop
No change. It was understood that the temporary use of the property next door was currently due to end during the coming months. Options to at least tidy the site could be considered.
Action: The two PCs would continue to monitor the position.
8. Nature Recovery
Castor – Fi Rowlands gave an update covering:
• Plans for a wetland area and pond at the Paddocks; in due course they would hold occasional open days.
• A grant from the Cambs Community Foundation would be used to purchase equipment.
• Arrangements at Tweentowns were progressing slowly with PECT and a pond was envisaged.
• Access arrangements were being considered to accommodate views of allotment holders.
• A further open day at the Coppice was anticipated.
• Plans were in hand for Thorolds Paddock to be let for keeping chicken.
Ailsworth – Martin Stalley gave an update covering:
• There had been a need to replace the Water Harvester lock.
• Arrangements were moving forward with PECT regarding New Close.
• Consideration was being given as to how best to use the 16 acre field.
• My Ladies Pond off of Station Road had been dug out and was now in a much improved state.
• Hedges had been deliberately allowed to grow last year but unfortunately had been trimmed in error.
• New signage was being explored for use in the Recreation Ground and APC would liaise with CPC as the plans for this develop to provide consistency in the two parishes.
9. Any other business?
No points arose.
10. Date of next meeting
Thursday 15 May 2025 at 7.30 pm. The Chapter Room at the Cedar Centre has been confirmed.
ANNEX
Meeting at on 18 November 2024
Present: Maria Cafano and Joanna Sawkins of PCC and David Shaw of CPC, and John Hodder
1. Castor NP Review
1.1 Maria asked about the CPC response to the NPT objection regarding the change to CRV1:
• It’s unfortunate that the Clerk referred to the change as minor. However, the opening paragraph of Appendix 7 of the CNP Review covers this and the review makes it clear in paragraph 3 that the change is recognized as a material modification.
• The NPT objection makes the point that the temporary changing facilities will need to be replaced in due course. This would be covered by the second paragraph of CRV 1, which specifically says that development of facilities for recreation and sporting activities will be supported provided CH1 criteria are met.
• This could be made clear by adding appropriate wording to Appendix 7. However, Maria wondered whether the proposed wording for the additional paragraph to CRV1 could be tweaked in some way?
Action: David Shaw to consider whether any rewording is appropriate.
1.2 Maria confirmed that in due course she would raise similar points re-the CNP Review as she has re-the ANP Review for its final submission. See item 2 below.
2. Ailsworth NP Review
Maria’s ask in her to APC that the review be submitted via email to planningpolicy@peterborough.gov.uk with the following:
• A tracked changes version of the review of ANP (word doc) – She meant the actual ANP rather than the review.
• A clean new version of the ANP in PDF – she confirmed that it would be used to replace the current Adopted ANP on the PCC Website.
• In light of this Maria confirmed that the ten references to the defunct NP Website could be updated if preferred notwithstanding that she’d previously advised that they could be left until further changes were needed.. Otherwise they would clearly be long out of date and, if updated, Maria agreed that these would seem to be minor (non-material) modifications.
• A document with a table setting out the policy changes (much like the existing NP review document which had been sent to her. She clarified that she’d developed a tabulated format and she would forward this to David Shaw for consideration.
• A covering letter or email to say that the qualifying body considers the review to be minor (non-material).
3. Maria agreed that it made sense for the two NP reviews to be dealt with at the same time even though the ANP Review could proceed ahead of the CNP Review.