Please click this link to view the May 2022 newsletter
Given the recent government advice we are looking to set up a community helpers group, to support anyone in our community, but especially our vulnerable and elderly residents.
We would like you to get in touch if you can volunteer to help.
Please send an email to LintonCollinghamHelpers@gmail.com with the best number we can contact you on. When we need you we will be in touch.
If you are a resident and need any assistance with shopping, collecting prescriptions, dog walking or just a friendly phone call, send an email to LintonCollinghamHelpers@gmail.com with your name address and phone number.
Please pass this message on to any other residents in our villages.
Linton Village Society
Minutes of the Annual General Meeting
Tuesday 4 June 2019 at 7.30pm
Committee: Ashley Guise (chair), Richard Bolton, Geoff Wilkinson, Tony Riall, Julie Brown
1. Members were welcomed.
2. Apologies had been received from J Carnell and R Scott
The minutes of the previous AGM were agreed.
4. Matters Arising
There were no matters arising.
5. Treasurer’s Report
The Treasurer’s report was presented and agreed.
6. Kebble – Ridge Update
Given that the Ridge development had been approved the developers had three years to submit a detailed planning application. Local councillors (Ryan Stephenson, Matthew Robins and Sam Firth) in consultation with the Parish Council would have input into discussions.
Methodology and materials were matters that would be reviewed and it was hoped that a Committee representing local interests could meet with the developers. Linton was designated a dark village so there would be no street lighting.
Members raised a recent House of Lords ruling which indicated that where an individual property owner held a right of access to land this evaporated if the site were to be sold so that multiple owners required access.
7. Developments Around Wetherby (Eric Gallagher of Better Wetherby Partnership)
There were two key issues of concern to Linton:
• The Stockeld estate development which had planning consent for 201 houses adjacent to the Bellway scheme. This abuts NYCC, HBC and LCC boundaries. It had appeared likely to be rejected by HBC but after three meetings of the planning committee it was approved. Immediately the Better Wetherby Partnership (BWP) had launched a ‘calling’ procedure; however, the Minister had decided that Harrogate Borough Council were fit to make the decision. BWP were considering judicial review which might be expensive and might result in a recommendation that Harrogate review their own decision. It was noted that the affordable housing included would be included in Harrogate’s figures. Mr Gallagher also noted the lack of a national planning policy framework to cover boundary developments.
• Of more concern to Wetherby but affecting all areas was the outline planning application by Taylor Wimpy for 1,100 houses on the racecourse approach – Swinell Park – on the east side of the A1. This wraps around the young offenders’ site. The Chief Planning Officer at LCC was recommending consent. This would meet LCC targets for North East Leeds housing and is deemed a preferred site in the draft local plan. BWP are opposed to the scheme, having concerns about the impact for traffic in Collingham and Kirk Deighton, and put these concerns to the planning panel which deferred ta decision and asked the developers to undertake more consultation. There was a meeting at Wetherby Town Hall on Friday 7 June if members wished to participate. BWP were not opposed to all development but believed in better homes in better places and felt that there were more suitable sites within the Wetherby boundary. Unfortunately, this was problematic because the preferred sit crossed the boundary with Harrogate.
It was also noted that Thorp Arch had been designated for employment not housing in the local plan. LVS was supporting BWP and had sent a representative to recent meetings.
8. Village projects – Parish Council Update (Alison and Angela)
The annual Parish Council Meeting has been held in May. Councillors had spent considerable effort accessing funding and fundraising before utilising the precept and had been grateful for the work done by volunteers. This had been a significant year working on 43 projects including:
• The Collingham and Linton Remembers project for the centenary of the 1918 armistice. Blue plaques had been erected on buildings occupied at the time.
• Supporting Remembrance Day services In Collingham
• A new playground in Collingham which was delivered in 6 weeks
• Reviewing grant applications including Linton Memorial Hall which regularly receives a £5,000 grant from precept, and which has been offered four years’ payment in advance at £20,000 to fund a proposed extension.
• Consultation on a fixed speed indicator device to be installed after a survey by Leeds City Council
• Northgate Lane beck
• Beck Wood – benches, bike track and regular clean-up days
• Arranging the replacement of signage with the more traditional village signs.
• Bulb planting in the village.
Future projects include:
• Gateway features at the entrances to the village which are awaiting plans from the Highways Department before consultation can be completed
• Footpath development at Kiln Hill which is part of the planning conditions imposed on Kebble
Attendees were advised that there is a current vacancy for a parish councillor from the village and volunteers were sought.
9. Request Approval for Village Hall Support (S Ballantyne)
The issue was that the stage was the only suitable place to store tables and chairs. It was proposed to build an external store which would benefit the ground and lower floor to provide additional space.
The Linton Memorial Hall’s income came from grants, bequests and hiring fees. Improvements to date had included a new kitchen, new roof and heating system upgrades.
The trustees were requesting a contribution to the storeroom extension costs. In response to questions, it was noted that the likely cost would be £15,000 to £20,000; that there were no detailed plans or estimates at this stage; and members had heard that the Parish Council had offered to make advance payments of their grant but his was not new funding rather payment on account.
Attendees unanimously agreed a contribution could be made from LVS funds in principle but required further details before making a definite decision. We also need to see fully detailed plans and costings to be clear this is value for money. Members suggested a donation of around £5,000 might be reasonable. It was deemed important that LVS had sufficient funds to finance any future projects and contribute to any planning application consultations. It was also noted that funds of up to £500 would be required to support BWP as noted in item 7 above.
10. Address by Local Councillor (Ryan Stephenson)
• Councillors were working closely with the Parish Council on the Emmerdale panel.
• It was recognised that it was not satisfactory that 50% of local children went to schools in North Yorks – work was underway to improve matters especially as more housing would increase demand for places.
• Environmental policies were being reviewed, including possible requirements that any individual felled tree should be replaced by three new plantings.
• Work was to be undertaken on shaping developments – such as the situation with Kebble including considering where affordable housing should be provided
• The neighbourhood plan was completed. And Leeds did now have a clear strategy for future housing needs.
• LCC had decided that the 20mph speed limit proposed in central government guidance should be applied to every residential street. Signs should only be erected at the start and end of each zone, therefore, only on entrances into the village. Members noted that a plethora of street signs would urbanise the village environment.
11. Re-Election of Committee
The re-election of the current committee was proposed and seconded, and unanimously agreed.
The LVS constitution
It had been discussed during item 9 above that the existing constitution did not adequately define the role or workings of the society. This led to there been confusion over the extent to which the committee could act without exposure to challenge and was ambiguous as to due processes..
All agreed that the existing document needed updating to ensure it was fit for purpose.
After some discussion about the necessary changes (Roger Limbert) offered to assist in the re-drafting. The new constitution would then be presented to an extraordinary general meeting.
This was unanimously agreed.
The chair thanked all for their attendance and contributions.