2:         Sergeant Rae accompanied by a PCSO colleague mentioned further burglaries of outbuildings and also burglaries in local communities. The sergeant reminded everyone to be watchful and to ensure property was secured.

3:         Crime figures for the month of February were 5 “other” crimes, giving an overall total of 43 incidents since the start of the financial year – up by 33% on last year.

7:         Youth Forum Funding. Cllr Hughes mentioned that the Youth Forum should seek funding from East Northants Council for any specific projects they may have.

8:         The Councillor drew attention to the forthcoming year when he would be Chairman of East Northants Council and hoped representatives of the Council would be able to attend the Annual meeting of East Northants Council.

9:         Neighbourhood Watch. The Clerk had written to Mr Robins (Police) regarding a Neighbourhood watch scheme suggesting that this should be developed at street level rather than village level.

10:     Eady’s Row gate. The Clerk had responded to Mrs Keane of Eady’s Row regarding the gate at the top of Eady’s Row explaining the history of the gate and who might be responsible for it.

11:     Trees in High Street. The Clerk reported he had written again to Drayton Estate regarding the pruning of the trees in the High Street. No reply received as yet.

13:     Planning Committee Comments

a)           The Planning Committee had not commented on any plans since the last meeting.

14:     East Northamptonshire Council Decisions

a)           Land adj. 8 Long Row. New detached dwelling EN/07/02427/OUT. Application Refused – failed to demonstrate site capable of accommodating development.

b)           3A DeCapel Close. New detached dwelling EN/07/02405/FUL. Application Refused – would detract from the character and appearance of surrounding area and setting of nearby listed building

15:     New Planning Applications

a)           No new planning applications had been received

16:     Other Planning Matters

17:     Road Closure. The road at Ringstead Mill would be closed on 25^th March for one day.

18:     Football Pitches. Kettering Town Ladies had written requesting details of hiring pitches. Mr Colson suggested they contact Mr I Borrett.

19:     Playground Inspection. Wicksteed Playscapes had written offering their services for playground inspections. Councillors unanimously agreed that the Clerk request an unaccompanied inspection at a cost of £40.00.

20:     Community Speed Watch. ACRE had sent details of as community speed-watch scheme which would enable trained volunteers to operate a speed camera for two weeks in the village and erect Speedwatch Boards. Whilst being interested in the scheme councillors agreed not to take up the scheme which would run for an overall period of six weeks during the year. A petition supporting the scheme containing 250 signatures of villagers plus ten nominated volunteers to operate the equipment was required to be eligible to take part in the scheme.

21:     The Chairman asked that the following items of correspondence be circulated:

a)         Clerk and Councils Direct

b)        ENC Reports and minutes

c)         NCC Minutes

d)        St George’s Day promotion

e)         Standards Board Flyer

Represented by:-

Current Account

£96.90

£31,510.20

23:     Further to the Council’s submission in agreement with the ENC Proposal for development of Woodford, counter submissions had now been made and Councillors discussed each of the four sites which could be used as potential development sites by 2021.

a)           Thrapston Road. Land between the SMC site and Alledge Drive had been requested to be included in the village boundary. Councillors suggested that any further development in this area would set a precedent for further development along all the allotments in this area of the village. Councillors agreed unanimously to object.

b)           Thrapston Road. A submission for land on the west of Thrapston Road encompassing the farm site and land up to the surgery had been proposed as a site for mixed use development (not defined). Councillors surmised that such a development would provide in the region of one hundred properties (less if some industrial development was included), but this would dramatically increase the already overburdened infrastructure of the village and the inadequate approach roads. Councillors unanimously agreed to object.

c)           South of Paddocks. Site in field between Paddocks development and the playing fields. Councillors suggested that if this site was to be developed on the scale of the present Paddocks development, potentially a further fifty houses could be constructed increasing the demand on the local infrastructure which already appeared to be stretched to the limit. Councillors unanimously agreed to object.

d)           “Rear” of Rectory Lane. Land to the rear (southwest) of Rectory Lane to be included in village boundary. The reason for this proposal was not evident as it was to the rear of existing properties and was not accessible from existing highways. If there was a proposal to extend the gardens in Rectory Lane then these did not need to be within the village boundary.

24:     Paddocks Development. Mr Holben said he understood that all of the low-cost housing (both rental and shared ownership) had now been let; however, none were understood to be occupied by any applicants from Woodford. Mr M Vaughan said he was under the impression that one of the conditions contained within the Housing Needs Survey was that Woodford residents should have been given a higher priority. Clerk to investigate.