Approve and sign Minutes  Prop. M Hills,   sec. M Norton.

Matters arising
There had been one response to the plea in the Link for a seventh parish councillor. Mrs Irene Reveco was present at the meeting and it was unanimously agreed that she be co-opted as a parish councillor.
Patio area paving behind village hall was in hand and was to be paid for from village hall funds.
Inspection of Jubilee Garden stones would be arranged by H Hutton before next meeting.
Contractor had completed works to recreation equipment prior to annual inspection.
Speedwell School had been sent a cheque for £150 (S. 137) - there were 25 Sandford pupils and the commemoration books were £6 each.

District Councillor's report
J Stimson was unable to be present but had sent a report mainly concerning Green Belt issues regarding the two sites within the village already discussed under Local Plan issues and the proposed changes to the Green Belt in the forthcoming County Structure Plan. The proposed changes had been passed in the County Council meeting but it was probable that SODC would oppose. He advised that the parish council forms an opinion and pursues it with vigour. He would arrange for an officer from SODC to attend a meeting when the Plan is issued and also a CPRE representative.
With regard to the Park Homes site, it was hoped to arrange a site visit before the next Scrutiny Committee meeting.

Matters for consideration

Green Belt - N Northcott had received an e-mail from Cllr R Tudor Hughes describing the parts of the Draft Structure Plan Review 2011 - 2016 which apply to Sandford. The review relates to the period 2011 -2016 and has been approved for passing to the next stage which is public consultation. The County Council voted to "- - support the inclusion of land south of Grenoble Road, Oxford as an Urban Extension of Oxford for mixed use, including the development of at least 1,000 houses within the plan period. (ie 2011 - 2016)" "This will    (a) necessitate a revision of the Green Belt boundary.    (b) action will be needed to overcome the restraints identified by the Working Group" Secondly "As an alternative to expansion of Bicester, Didcot and Grove and the Oxford Green Belt consideration should be given to the development of a new community beyond

the boundary of the Green Belt. The preferred size and location of such a development will need to be determined so as to reflect the extent and location of future housing need as it becomes apparent." Cllr Tudor Hughes commented:- "If the SP is approved the words 'mixed use' will enable the Science Park to expand and elsewhere in the SP it says that priority in industrial expansion will be given to science based industry and R&D in services. This would mean that land between the A4074 and the sewage station (to be moved) would become Science Park and beyond the sewage station the 1,000 or so houses would be built. The existing overhead cables would probably be moved or laid underground. In other words the scenically more attractive landscape of the Science Park would be a buffer between Sandford and the additional housing estate. Such a development would need a dedicated access probably from a new roundabout to the east of Sandford which would take not only the new traffic but the existing traffic to the Science Park and the Kassam Stadium and give relief to the village. I asked the proposer of this amendment to make reference in his speech to the necessity for such a dedicated access to by-pass the village and whilst it is not recorded in the minutes I shall write to the chief Planning Officer to put it on record. Oxford City Council wants some extra space for housing to match the rejuvenation of its industrial base. It is hard to disagree with this as it is bursting at the seams and every spare piece of land outside of what is designated for industry is built on as soon as it becomes vacant. The problem is that Oxford is constrained all around by Green Belt. The land south of Grenoble Road is in South Oxfordshire and the District Council will almost certainly be opposed to this development and will use the Green Belt argument. The actual piece of Green Belt is not notable in landscape terms nor do I think it has a high agricultural rating but I do not know its grade. You will need to assess to what extent the District Council's opposition results from a concern that the built-on extension will be allocated to the City in a future boundary review. I can think of three possible scenarios for the PC in the next stages of the process.  1.  Do very little and see what happens.  2.  Play an active part in opposing the expansion of the Science Park and the new housing (I think the two are now connected; if the housing does not succeed the Science Park will be blocked as well) and throw in your lot with the District Council.  3.  Also play an active part and have meetings with the City and County Planners, the Science Park and any other interested parties and offer your support in return for defined benefits for Sandford. The second amendment opens up the possibility of a new town to replace some at least of the proposed housing development at Didcot, Bicester, Grove and Oxford Green Belt. This had been explicitly rejected by Officers and Members on the Working Party but was pushed through by a large majority at Council. It is quite new and it is difficult to know just yet whether the idea will gather momentum. I was also very involved in trying to amend the decision to open a huge gravel extraction quarry somewhere within the Stadhampton, Berinsfield, Warborough and Benson area but failed to get a majority. I don't think it will have a direct impact on Sandford. I am sorry I shall not be with you on the 7th but if you hold an August meeting I can attend on the 4th. 1 shall post to you separately the letter and plan from Savills re Science Park. I have been waiting to get to a photocopier."

Traffic matters - Peter Egawhary described the proposals for parking along Grenoble Rd. The advertisement had been placed and no objections received. Following the Section 106 agreement to implement the works the money would be sought from Kassam. £5,000 had been agreed towards traffic calming in the village and he said there were at present 3 options. He left a copy of these with the clerk and interested parties should form an opinion of preferences before the next meeting in August. He would take time with the parish

council to consult so that a satisfactory scheme could be arrived at hopefully by September. A discussion followed and Henley Rd residents reported on the nuisance caused by heavy lorries passing their homes in the night. Peter would check with Mark Francis on what the weight restrictions are and what can be done. N Northcott said that whatever measures were taken might prove to be temporary if the new development occurred and a new road and roundabout on the A4074 were built.

Village appraisal - report appended. M Hills was congratulated on his report and various options for undertaking an appraisal were discussed. M Hills was of the opinion that a dedicated sub-committee be set up to consist of councillors and parishioners. ORCC offered help with this and clerk would contact them and ask them for the best way forward.

Planning   P03/W0472 47 Henley Rd - rear extensions. It was hard to tell from the drawings what was proposed as it did not seem to match what was already there. It was a retrospective application in that substantial work had already started.

Income and expenditure  - Prop. M Hills, sec. M Norton.

Income		Expenditure SODC bus tokens Green and Tidy G Surman, Fence & file railings Speedwell School, books Oxford Green Belt network E Shatford, salary & expenses	485.00 1391.20 251.40 150.00 15.00 868.13
Total		Total	3,160.73

For information
Clerk to write to Four Pillars re. poor state of style by substation.

Items for agenda of next meeting

Date of next meeting - Monday 4th August 7.00 pm in the village hall

Meeting closed at 8.30 pm