Parish Coucnil Meeting, 17th May 2000

The monthly Council meeting was opened by Clr. Hirst. The re-election of officers resulted in Clrs. Hirst and Cox retaining the positions of Chairman and Vice-Chairman unopposed. There were apologies received from Clr. Bowering, the previous minutes were accepted, with no matters arising.

An update on the Backdale Quarry situation was supplied by Mr. Barton: there are no formal developments, but SLEG had heard that Glebe Mines (Laporte’s successor) intended to apply for permission to extract stone and minerals from Deep Rake (the rake on the very top of Longstone Edge) to a depth of 90 metres. If granted, this would supersede any existing permissions or applications. A surplus of stone would be produced by these operations, and this would be sold.

This month saw a glut of planning applications considered: a double garage at Thornbridge Manor was approved, a conservatory at 7, Edge View Drive was approved. An extension at 2, The Meadows and a conservatory at 6, The Meadows were then considered. The PC approved these on the grounds that several precedents had already been set, but noted – again - that in principle they are opposed to extensions to houses that were intended as low cost starter homes. The PC felt that the PPPB "had lost the plot", should have been stricter in controlling developments on the Meadows and that the original objective of the properties is gradually being lost.

A more contentious application was then discussed. This being outline permission for a house and garage on Moor Road, to be built in what is now garden. Points raised during the (lively) discussion included: was this really ‘infill’, as it was not continuing the lines of other, existing properties; it was on the edge of the village, on fairly open ground, and so extended the village; why has this application been accepted by the PPPB when other, apparently more deserving cases had been dismissed. The applicant had included a letter explaining that the development was ‘affordable, local needs housing’ for his children, but the Council queried the validity of this statement in light of the large size of the proposed development. It was noted that the applicant’s property had been on the market recently, but had not been sold, so there was some concern that this was a speculative application. The PC felt unable to approve the application, and will forward their concerns to the PPPB.

It was noted that the developer of Glebe Court had withdrawn his application to have the ‘local occupancy’ clause alleviated on the Glebe Court properties. Finally an application for Sylvan, The Close, to erect a porch and an extension to the house to replace an existing conservatory was approved.

Under financial matters: The balances were £8,770 in the current account, £2526.56 on deposit. This year’s precept had just been received, and not yet been transferred to the deposit account, so effectively this shows the reserve funds the PC holds, although some of this is for projects planned for 1999/2000 that have not yet been paid for. Several minor payments were approved. Clr. Askew had nothing to report on the Village Hall.

Work on the playground equipment has now started, but already seems to be a bigger job than originally thought. Related to this, it was noted that a large amount of garden rubbish had been dumped on the recreation ground, and the PC resolved to write to the people believed to responsible and to ask them not to do so again and to move it. The result of the letter sent about the unauthorised gate onto the recreation ground was unknown, and it was resolved that the Clerk would check, and write again if the gate was still extant.

The Council has received a consultation document detailing the proposals to close the Bakewell Courts and transfer their business to Chesterfield. The PC had already written to express their opposition to this. It would seem that Bakewell Town Council is equally keen to retain the courts, as they have offered to make alterations to the buildings in order to eliminate all the reasons given in favour of closure. The PC resolved to write again, and express their support for retaining the courts in Bakewell.

There was much discussion – again – about the Council’s proposed Millennium Celebration. Nothing could be firmly resolved, so the Chairman proposed that a sub-committee be tasked with finalising the arrangements. It was noted that time is running out, and it was not long until the date initially proposed, in early July. The sub-committee would have to finalise the matter quickly.

A letter from a Bakewell resident had been received asking if it would be possible to lease an allotment plot. The Council considered that as all the plots had not yet been let, despite several mentions in UTE, it was not unreasonable to allow ‘outsiders’ to lease them. It was suggested that the other available plots be advertised in surrounding villages, but as the growing season was well under way, and in order to give local people a further opportunity, the Council decided to hold off doing this until next Spring. Two points raised in the Annual Meeting were then discussed: the weeds in unused plots and the need to maintain paths around all plots. The PC agreed that the rampant dandelions did need attention, and resolved to ask Mr Watson to weedkiller them, following which Clr. Fawcett volunteered to rotovate the unused plots. On the subject of paths, it was noted that some of the paths had been dug up and incorporated into allotments. The CP resolved to determine which paths, and write to the relevant allotment holders requesting that the paths be reinstated, as per the terms of the allotment lease. The PC intended to tidy up and renovate the allotment land, and did intend to police the plots to ensure the terms of the leases were upheld. The matter of a water supply on the allotments was raised again; the PC felt that although a tap would undoubtedly benefit the allotments, there would be problems in paying for both the connection and on-going water bills. The annual payments for the plots were very low, and would not cover the costs incurred. Clr. Fawcett suggested alternative sources of water could be investigated and the PC resolved to do this.

Under the topic of maintenance, the matter of the fallen wall on the north side of the recreation ground was discussed again. The PC felt they had no proven responsibility for this wall, and therefore should not rebuild it. The Council would ask the house owner to check their deeds, if the wall was not included on the deeds, the PC would accept responsibility, if it was, then it would be clear that the Council had no responsibility.

There was nothing to report on glass recycling, and on the issue of the business park, the Clerk reported that one resident of Barn Furlong had complained about late night noise. However the PC felt there was little that could be done without more comprehensive information: date, time and the nature of the noise.

Correspondence received: the Peak Park Parishes Forum Newsletter, Derbyshire Association of Local Councils circular, Rural Development Program Newsletter, a Draft Road Safety Plan, publicity from Potential Training & Development, notification of the CPRE’s National Picnic Weekend at Winster. A letter had been received from Baslow Parish Council asking for the Council’s support in two motions they intend to put forward at the DALC: 1/ That the Community Forums are effectively reducing the powers and influence of Parish Councils and centralising power in district councils; 2/ That the government’s plans to pay benefits directly instead of via Post Offices could lead to the closure of rural Post Offices and consequently the loss of valuable local services. The PC resolved to support both motions.