Skip to main content

18 March 2013

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Tickton and Routh Parish Council held in Tickton Village Hall, on Monday 18 March 2013

Present:                      Councillor Morris (in the Chair)

                                    Councillors Caley, Harbidge Hardy, Oliver, A Walker, N Walker, Webster, Wells


Apologies:                  Councillors Dobson, Sinkler


In Attendance:            Mrs Lloyd – Clerk (minute taker)

                                    Ward Councillor Pollard (for agenda item 6 [minute 123 refers] only)


Public:            There were no members of the public present





Councillor Morris declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 9b (minute 126 refers) as Chairman of the Village Hall Management Committee; Councillor Oliver declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 9b (minute 126 refers) as a member of the Village Hall Management Committee.



121       PUBLIC FORUM


There were no members of the public present




Resolved –The minutes of 18 February 2013 are signed as a true and correct record.





There were no matters arising that were not on the agenda.





The Ward Councillor discussed a recently approved planning application.


The state of Red and Green Cottages were raised by Councillors.





The information received from the Police and Neighbourhood Watch was noted.


125       PLANNING


Planning Decisions 


Ref 12/05059/PLF – Erection of a first floor extension to side at 10 Scotts Garth Close, Tickton for Mr A Young


This application is granted permission


Planning Applications


Ref 13/00585/PLF – Erection of dwelling at Land East of 7 Main Street Tickton for Mr G Smith.


Resolved – An objection is to be raised as follows:


Land to the East of 7 Main Street is within the Tickton Conservation Zone and as such any development on this land is currently subject to policies E21 – E25 in the Beverley Borough Local Plan.  Contrary to these policies this application seeks to subdivide an existing plot and impose a building that is unsympathetic in terms of reserved matters in the context of its neighbours within the conservation area.  




Space – the proposed building is too cramped for the location identified.  It would take up the entire frontage and would be overbearing in relation to those properties to the side of it that are small cottages.


Scale – the proposed building is not in keeping with the scale of the other properties within this

Conservation Area. 


Overall form – the proposed building is totally out of character with the other properties on the south side of Main Street as it is too modern and utilitarian in design  – in particular the integral garage will look out of place; the brick wall  will dominate the streetscene; the roof line is out of scale with the dominant roof line of the neighbouring properties; and there is no chimney which  every other neighbouring property has. 


Materials – the proposed building does not conform to the requirement to use traditional materials that are in harmony with the surroundings – the roof materials differ, the definition of red bricks is very vague, the use of uPVC window frames and plastic guttering is not traditional (properties that have these had them in place prior to the establishment of the Conservation area only). 


Significantly, the house fails to meet the ‘high standard’ of design required in a Conservation zone.




There are concerns about the impact any development will have on the amount of run- off suffered by neighbouring properties.  There is some confusion about the height of the building as there appears to be an AOD level discrepancy between the existing and proposed plans. 


The plan also includes the assumption that 3 trees will be removed from the existing site and 2 will remain.  The remaining 2 will be very close to the new development and it is felt that these 2 trees will also be vulnerable if the development goes ahead. 


The plan also includes vehicular access across amenity land where there is none currently. 


Comments are to be made that if approved the building should be redesigned to be more in keeping with the character of the  conservation area – it should be smaller scale, cottage design using traditional materials as in the objection.


As this is a Conservation Zone it is recommended that, if the planning officer is recommending approval of this scheme, it should be referred to the appropriate Committee.



East Riding Draft Local Plan


The draft local plan proposed that Tickton was a primary village.  Primary villages were expected to grow by 10% over the plan period or 85 dwellings however due to flood risk no specific allocations for residential development had been made therefore development can only take place within the current development limits.  Weel and Routh were designated as countryside with appropriate scale development and no loss of high quality agricultural land.


Resolved – Tickton should not be categorized as a primary village due to the limited nature of the services available, the inability of the infrastructure to cope with development, and the fact that it is classified as in ‘grave danger’ of flooding.  Rather it should be classified as a rural village where development would be limited to infill within the existing limits over the 17 year period.  It is acknowledged that East Riding have gone some way to recognise this as the documentation circulated states that no new specific sites either within or outside the current development limits  will be allocated for residential development due to the extent of the high flood risk around these villages.  We support this approach.  However we feel that when this document goes forward to the next stage this could be challenged.  We would rather that the settlement was reclassified as a ‘rural settlement ‘to remove this threat.


Additionally, the green belt around the villages within the Parish and between the Parish and surrounding areas (particularly within the areas covered by Molescroft Parish and Beverley Town Council) should not be eroded by any further development.  For this reason development of the site BEV 26 is not acceptable.



126       FINANCE

Financial Statement:


The financial statement to the end of February was presented to the Parish Council.  This also showed an up to date prediction of the year end under spending.



Tickton Village Hall

Resolved – To pay £9.60 room hire


Mr Little

Resolved – To pay £28.25 salary


Mr Brice

Resolved – To pay £62.19 salary


Mrs Lloyd

Resolved – To pay £930.40 salary



Resolved – To pay £268.20 PAYE


ERYC Supplies

Resolved – To pay £33.67 for stationery



Resolved – To pay £372.00 for refill of salt bins



Payments made under Financial Regulations 6(d) and 7(b)


Playground Inspection Company


Resolved – A payment of £234.00 for the report is noted





A request had been received from Real Aid to use the Playing Field on Sunday 21 July    As in previous year they intended to hold a dog show on the field which was contrary to the delegated authority for the clerk’s approval and could only be approved by the Parish Council.  In normal circumstances dogs are not allowed on the village field.  On the previous occasion the Parish Council was not aware they intended to run a dog show until it became too late to oppose it.  An alternative exists in that they could hold the show on the Car Park.


Resolved – The proposal is approved with the normal conditions applying.  This means that the dog show would not be allowed on the Village Field.





The report on the Annual Inspection of the Parish Council’s play areas had been circulated.  The report showed that the risks level was low for all three areas. The handyman would work on the minor repairs that had been identified and on other areas of minor improvements he had identified.


Resolved – The content of the report is noted





The Jubilee Committee had met but had not yet identified a suitable memorial.





Councillor Hardy updated the meeting regarding the responses he had received from residents of Weel regarding a scheme for placing play equipment on Weel Common that he had obtained.





A meeting would take place on 19 March of the working group.  A request would be made to invite a member of the group to speak to the Annual Parish meeting regarding the Fund.





Steve Charlton the area engineer had proposed to fill the ruts on the grass verge with road planings which would allow vehicles to park on or run over the verges but would also protect the underground services.


Resolved – Tarmacing the verge is the preferred option but as this was not available at this time a request would be made to fill the ruts with road planings.  The effectiveness of the road planings would be monitored.



133       ROUTH BUS STOP


A response had been received from the bus operator that stated that they had told the bus operatives to keep a sharp look out at Routh bus stop.  They had spoken to East Riding regarding improved lighting but funding was not available to install one single light unless paid for and maintained by the PC.


Resolved – A request would be made to East Riding of Yorkshire Council for an estimated cost of installation of the single street light.





An invitation to join a Coast and Wolds Parish Council network had been received from Burton Agnes Parish Council.  Lissett and Ulrome had already agreed to join.  The purpose of the network would be to exchange information and help and support each other with large infrastructure proposals.


Resolved – A representative would be sent to the first meeting.





Dates for future meetings of the Parish Council and the Annual Parish Meeting were discussed.


Resolved – The following dates are approved:

Monday 15 April 2013 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 29 April 2013 (Annual Parish Meeting)

Monday 20 May 2013 (Annual Meeting)

Monday 17 June 2013 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 15 July 2013 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 16 September 2013 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 21 October 2013 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 18 November 2013 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 9 December 2013 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 20 January 2014 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 10 February 2014 (Ordinary Meeting)

Monday 17 March 2014 (Ordinary Meeting)



There being no further business the meeting closed at 10.20 pm. The next ordinary meeting was scheduled for 15 April 2013.