Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council

 ‘Floreat Oxtona – Let Oxton Flourish’

            Minutes: Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council

                                    30^th January 2012

                                    Oxton War Memorial Hall

                                    7.30 pm

In attendance:

Jules Reeley – (Chair)

Dave Burrell – resident

Stephanie Knight – resident & Committee Member

Raymond Smith – resident and Hall Committee Chair

Paul Docherty – resident

Allan Dawson – resident

Ian Young – resident

David Parker – SBC Council

Councillor John Paton Day

Jonathan Stevenson – resident

Andrew Cunningham – resident

Sonia Borthwick – resident and Committee Member

Len Todd – resident

Apologies:

Iain Robinson

Malcolm Edgar

1. 1.      Welcome and Introductions: JR welcomed everyone and asked for a ‘round the table’ introduction

1. 2.      Apologies: JR intimated apologies, as above

1. 3.      Adoption of previous Minutes: JR proposed the adoption, SK seconded the motion.

1. 4.      Matters Arising: SK raised a Point of Order in connection with the identification of roles in the attendees list and suggested some uniformity and proposed that members of the OCCC Committee be designated as such.

ChannelkirkPrimary School:

PD reviewed the recent history surrounding the threatened closure of Channelkirk PS some 6 and a half years ago ,indicated that the Commission for Rural Schools had convened a public meeting at which he would be attending. PD asked for both JPD and DP to give comment on the long term status of Channelkirk PS.

DP responded by saying that in his opinion there was no cause for concern over the future status of the School, that the elected Members had previously voted overwhelmingly to retain the School and that he could not foresee a situation where this decision would require to be revisited. He indicated that he was aware that COSLA were looking again at the definition of what constitutes a rural school and that in some circumstances schools within small towns are caught by the current definition of a Rural school which may not necessarily be the case and that this can lead to difficulties for Local Authorities who may wish to review the provision of schools in certain areas.

PD made a further point regarding the cost per pupil for providing education at a rural school such as Channelkirk and a school like Lauder with the difference in cost per pupil being negligible for a rural school as for a town school. DP reaffirmed his previous statement about the status of Channelkirk. JPD added that he was against any school closure unless it was driven by a parental body and in those cases where parents had made conscious decisions to remove their children from a school. JR thanked PD for his support for the school.

1. 1.      Village Resilience planning: a. Update – JR noted that equipment was in the portacabin.

1. 2.      Village Improvements: JR noted that prices were being collated.

1. 3.      Community Path Network: JR noted that IR had been unable to get in touch with Neil Mackay regarding this project and that NW had provided an indicative cost at the last meeting.

1. 4.      Village Cemetery: JR indicated that there may be money to be diverted from savings on the cost of the bus stop to help with the proposals for the cemetery.

1. 5.      Film Nights: SB reported that Lauder had started up a Film Night as part of the Lauder Trading Post and that their first night had gone well and therefore OCCC needed to decide whether it goes down the same route of some sort of resources sharing route. JR asked how many folk had attended from Oxton. SB replied that two car loads had gone down. JR indicated that in light of recent events such as fireworks and Extravaganza where the events were free they were well attended. The meeting went on to discuss the lack of support for the Burns Supper and that perhaps price had a bearing on ticket sales for that event. SB indicated that she’d be happy to pursue the idea of a film night, and perhaps a trial night could be arranged sometime after the Easter Holidays to gauge support and reaction.

1. 6.      Web site: JS indicated that the site was live, that a leaflet drop was proposed to raise further awareness for the web site and that it was linked to U Tube. JR asked whether a link to Facebook could be achieved and it was thought this could be a good idea.  

1. 7.      Village Hall: RS reported that there was no further updates at this stage.

1. 8.      Defibrillator: JR informed the meeting that both BT and SBC had responded to the adoption to phone box and that this was progressing. DB made the point that awareness of the presence of the defibrillator was still very low and that progress to locate the defibrillator needs to move quickly and that he’d previously had a quote to paint the phone box, which was passed to SB. JR asked about power into the phone box. A discussion ensued surrounding the provision of power to the phone box and that this required investigation.

1. 9.      Village Logo: SK informed the meeting that Napier and students had attended Oxton and met with Henry Borthwick, Iain and Dot Robinson and that they had also gone to the School and, thanks to Miss McLaren, had been given the opportunity to speak to the children as well. Submissions were due on the 20^th Feb, a short list would be drawn up, thereafter the Village residents would be given the opportunity to see the short listed presentations themselves. JR suggested that the School may be a venue for hosting the presentations. A general discussion surrounding arrangements ensued it being left to JR and SK to sort out logistics.

1. 10.  Broadband: PD reported that he had met with Duncan Nisbet and informed the meeting that SBC along with Dumfries and Galloway were to launch a joint bid for some of the £144m funding coming into Holyrood for upgrading of broadband around the region.

1. 11.  Windfarm Planning Applications: JR read a precognition statement that would be submitted on behalf of OCCC to the Planning Enquiry for Rowantree.  See attached.

RS noted that he held a totally different view to that represented by the statement. JPD noted that if the Community felt that development had gone far enough then the Community was well able to object. JR noted that the OCCC default objection position would be lodged with reference to the recent proposal for a wind farm at Gilston.

1. 12.  Music Workshop and Ceilidh Dance: SK reported that a music workshop was planned for 12^th May and that help would be required in the 6 week period leading up to the workshop. The Arts workshop would start again on the 6^th Feb.

1. 13.  Burns Night: JR noted that this event had been cancelled due to lack if ticket sales.

1. 14.  Games Day and Village Day: JR reported that ME had matters in hand.

1. 15.  Windfarm Grant Applications: It was noted that DLX next meeting to discuss applications was the 15^th February.

1. 16.  Planning Applications: it was noted that a recent application for two houses at Carfraemill had been submitted.

1. 17.  AOB: JPD noted that if there were any groups within the Community that were experiencing difficulties in nay shape or form with the new PVG (Disclosure Act) then he’d be pleased to offer assistance where he could. DB asked DP to comment on the timeframe for works at Justice Park, DP responded that there were a few minor obstacles to overcome but that he was confident that works would be completed by the end of June. DB then reaffirmed the need to act swiftly to locate the defibrillator as Scottish Borders TV was keen to do a piece on the new equipment. SB commented that if it proved easier in the first place to house the equipment in the Hall then this at least would provide a temporary home whilst matters to adopt the phone box moved along. Finally DP asked everyone that was a Member of the Lauder Health Practice to exercise their vote  

regarding the proposal for a new facility in Lauder.

Next Meeting: JR closed the Meeting and arranged that the next Meeting be held the 27^th February 2012.

Precognition by Mr Iain Robinson

Appeal Reference SECTION 36 APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED ROWANTREE WINDFARM NEAR OXTON, SCOTTISH BORDERS

Iain Robinson, Oxton & Channelkirk Community Council, Chair

1. 1.    I am representing the Community Council and their position on this application.

1. 2.    When the Community Council received the first application to develop the Windfarm in our area, known as Dun Law 1, a questionnaire was sent around all residents of Oxton & Channelkirk to gauge their views on that proposed windfarm and other potential windfarms that were in the ‘pipeline’ for development

1. 3.    An overwhelming reply from all those who participated (>65%), indicated that they were concerned that this application would be the ‘tip of the iceberg’ for other similar windfarm developments and that the area around Oxton and Channelkirk would be saturated with wind turbines.

It was for that reason the Community at large rejected the windfarm development known as Dun Law 1

1. 4.    Since then, there have been the following developments which have either been commissioned, under construction or consented which are within a 20Km radius of Oxton

1. a.    Dunlaw 2       <10Km
2. b.    Carcant          <10Km
3. c.    Toddelburn   <10Km
4. d.    Long Park      <10Km
5. e.    Pogbie           <10Km
6. f.     Keith Hill        <10Km
7. g.    Bowbeat        <20Km
8. h.    Fallago Rig   <20Km

1. 5.    While it is appreciated that not every turbine can be viewed from the heart of the village, there is a tremendous amount of recreational activity in and around the village, walking, riding, cycling etc for which the sight of the turbines impacts peoples appreciation of the surrounding countryside.

For many, this was the reason they moved into the area.

1. 6.    Following a recent (November 2011) Community Council meeting, a point was raised on the agenda to gain the current opinion of the Community on windfarm developments.

It was concluded that the opinion of the Community has not altered in the time since the initial survey and it is generally viewed that the surrounding area of Oxton & Channelkirk is saturated with wind turbines and that this current application to develop a further 23turbines within a 10Km radius is beyond the ‘tipping point’ of acceptability

It was also a serious point of concern from many residents who lived and worked close to the turbines that the noise emitted was totally unacceptable and in many cases had caused a detrimental impact to their life style.

Conclusion

It is the opinion of the people of Oxton & Channelkirk who live and work within our area that the volume of windturbines is already at saturation point and that any further developments which further adds to the concentration of these turbines within a radius of 10Km  is totally unacceptable.

For this reason alone, I would ask you to refuse this application.

 Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council

 ‘Floreat Oxtona – Let Oxton Flourish’

            Minutes: Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council

                                    9^th January 2012

                                    Oxton War Memorial Hall

                                    7.30 pm Continue reading →