To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 24^th October 2005.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24^th October 2005 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

A representative of Spennymoor Police will attend the meeting to give a report on crime statistics, initiatives in the area and road safety.

Inspector A. Green was present at the meeting to give details of the crime figures for the area.

The reported crime statistics for November 2005 were as follows:

Total crime had decreased by 7% compared to the same period in the previous year.

With regard to drug related incidents, it was noted that there had been 46 for the whole of the Borough and 14 for the Spennymoor area.

In relation to vehicle crime, it was reported that the number of incidents mainly related to the theft of objects left in vehicles, such a satellite navigation systems.

With regard to road traffic accidents, it was noted that the figures were as follows:

Concern was expressed regarding the design and positioning of the chicanes on Carr Lane, Spennymoor.  Large vehicles often mounted the pavement in order to negotiate the chicanes and some motorists raced each other to get through them. There had been three accidents within a short period of time and the chicanes/barriers had been damaged.

The Forum was reminded that the chicanes had been installed following requests from local residents for traffic calming measures.

It was agreed that Councillor E. Foster, Durham County Council should be informed of the concerns, with a view to a report being given at the next meeting of the Forum.

Arrangements have been made for C. Walton, Head of Planning Services to attend the meeting to give a presentation on the above.

A. Farnie, Principal Development Control Manager, was present at the meeting to give a presentation on the above document.

It was explained that the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Extensions had been prepared as part of Sedgefield Borough Local Development Framework, which would replace the Local Plan.

The Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Extensions had been prepared in advance of the Sedgefield Borough Local Development Framework as there was an urgent need for improved guidance on residential extensions as the existing guidance produced in 2000 was now out of date.

It was reported that final year students from the University of Newcastle had been commissioned to review the existing guidance and identify National Best Practice.  Council officers had subsequently refined the work to suit local circumstances.

A Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was produced and presented to the Borough Council’s Cabinet in September 2005 where it was approved for public consultation.  The consultation period had now ended and it was anticipated that the document would be adopted by the Council in February 2006.

The Draft Supplementary Planning Document was more comprehensive than the existing Supplementary Planning Guidance and provided detailed advice and guidance on the following:

Ø                       General design principles

Ø                       Porches

Ø                       Forward, side, rear and rural extensions

Ø                       Conservatories

Ø                       Dormer windows and roof extensions

Ø                       Garages and outbuildings

Ø                       Walls and fences

Ø                       Other material planning considerations

It was noted that the document was available for downloading on the Council’s website.

A representative of Sedgefield Primary Care Trust will attend the meeting to give an update on local health matters and performance figures.

Mrs. M. Fordham and D. Rutherford attended the meeting to give an update on local health matters.

Consideration was given to a copy of the Performance Management Report that had been submitted to the Board meeting on 10^th November 2005.  (For copy see file of Minutes)

With regard to the future PCT configuration in County Durham, it was reported that the preferred options were as follows:

Ø               A single county-wide PCT with Darlington included

Ø               A single county-wide PCT with Darlington excluded

The options would be subject to consultation and a final decision would be made in April. 

With regard to the re-provision of Spennymoor Health Centre, it was explained that the LIFT Company had been commissioned to undertake a feasibility study of possible sites within Spennymoor. 

Specific reference was made to the availability of the Choose and Book Service, which offered patients the choice of time, date and 4 providers for their first outpatient appointment.  It was noted that Sedgefield PCT had been ranked second in the country in October for the number of referrals made through Choose and Book.

The Forum’s attention was drawn to the work of the Drugs Action Team within the borough. It was requested that a representative of Orbit be invited to a future meeting of the Forum to give details of the services provided.

Concern was expressed regarding the shortage of NHS dentists within the borough.  It was noted that Sedgefield PCT was aware of the problem, particularly in Newton Aycliffe and had purchased a number of NHS dentistry sessions.

Arrangements have been made for A. Palmer, Head of Strategy and Regeneration to attend to give a presentation regarding the above.

A. Palmer, Head of Strategy and Regeneration, was present at the meeting to give details of the above Programme.

It was explained that the Borough Council had received a substantial receipt from the sale of land and had agreed to use the money to support activities that fell within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s eligible expenditure definition of ‘Regeneration’ and ‘Affordable Housing’.

It was pointed out that schemes to be advanced through the Local Improvement Programme would need to demonstrate the following:

Ø               Conformity to the specified ODPM Regeneration and Affordable Housing Criteria.

Affordable Housing - ‘the provision of dwellings to meet the housing needs, as identified by the local authority, of persons on low incomes, whether provided by the local authority or a registered local landlord…..’

          Regeneration - ‘any project for the carrying out of works or activities on any land where the land, or a building on the land, is vacant, unused, under-used, ineffectively used, contaminated or derelict; and

The works or activities are carried out in order to secure that the

         land or the building will be brought into effective use.’

Ø               Clear linkages to the delivery of the Council’s Community Strategy and its key aims and planned outcomes.

Ø               Appropriate levels of community consultation and reference to any Local Community Appraisal.

Ø               Provision of sufficient level of detail in the project submissions to show a specific quantification of the benefits to be achieved by the investment and to explain the process by which the scheme would be delivered and over what time period.

Ø               How any recurrent or revenue funding implications would be managed.

Ø               Value for money should be clearly demonstrated to include any match funding from other grant sources.

Allocations were based on the local area’s percentage share of households within the Borough.  Area 1 locality would receive £253,000 in 2006/07, £253,000 in 2007/2008 and £253,000 in 2008/09.

It was emphasised that there was no pressure to spend allocated budgets within any one financial year as unspent money would be rolled forward into the next financial year and protected for that Area Forum. 

It was reported that Area Forums along with Town and Parish Councils community and voluntary sector stakeholders would be invited to consider schemes that would be eligible for support under the Programme.  The final decision on which schemes would proceed, would be made by Sedgefield Borough Cabinet.

A team of staff at Sedgefield Borough Council would be available to support the development of schemes and would score applications received against the criteria.

Report of Building Control Manager.

Consideration was given to a report of the Building Control Manager regarding a request to name and number the above development comprising of nine detached dwellings.  (For copy see file of Minutes)

Councillor Thompson indicated that he wished to withdraw his suggestion of Thomas Wright and supported the proposal of Warwick Gardens.

The Forum supported the name of Warwick Gardens for the development.

Monday 13^th February 2006 at 6.30 p.m. at Memorial Room, Spennymoor Town Hall

Monday 13^th February 2006 at 6.30 p.m. at the Memorial Room, Spennymoor Town Hall.