|
|
Parish Council Meeting 12th December, 2000The meeting was opened at 7:30pm by Cllr. Hirst; there were apologies
received from DDDC Cllr. Mrs. Crowther, the previous minutes were
accepted, with no matters arising. Regarding
Backdale Quarry, a letter has been received from the PPPB. This states
that the scheme submitted is based upon an incorrect interpretation of the 1952
permissions. These permissions granted vein mineral extraction rights, with
limestone being a subsidiary product, only taken as a by-product of extracting
the minerals. However the scheme as submitted to the PPPB seems to reverse these
priorities, and the vein mineral extraction would become a by-product of
limestone quarrying. However, as no work was being done on the Backdale site,
and with no immediate prospect of anything happening, the PPPB did not intend to
pursue an injunction. The planning
application for Glebe Mines to work Longstone Edge has been received. This
consists of two documents, about four inches thick, and most councillors felt
more time was needed to study this. [See the separate article for a summary
of the application, Ed] As a decision at the PPPB is not expected until
February at the earliest, any delay is not an issue. There then followed much
discussion about the best path to follow to review and consider this very
contentious application. Glebe Mines have offered a site visit, and the
councillors felt that although it would be difficult to visualise workings on
the scale proposed, this would be a worthwhile exercise. The Council also felt
that they needed expert advice to interpret the application and resolved to ask
a representative from the PPPB to attend the meeting when the application was
formally considered. In the interests of fairness, a representative from Glebe
would also be asked. It was also agreed that there would be a public meeting so
that councillors could get the views of the public on this issue, so please keep
an eye open for further details of this. Additional
planning applications considered this month were: a resubmission of plans to
renovate Ash House, Main Street, en extension to Wayside, Mires Lane and a
conservatory at Ashville, Station Road. No councillors had any objections to or
comments on any of these and all were approved. The PPPB has written to the PC
with details of amendments to the Local Plan. These are at the behest of the
government, who feel that the PPPB’s plan restricted the criteria for allowing
development, landfill and mineral extraction to local considerations only. The
government wishes national requirements to be taken into consideration when
making decisions on these issues. The PC resolved to write to the PPPB to object
to these changes on the grounds that the area was a National Park and national
requirements should take second place to local requirements, including
preserving the natural beauty of the area. Finance:
The current account has £1000, the deposit account £3461. Several minor
payments were approved, and approval given for paying the contractors for the
playground slide resurfacing. The contractors responsible for the Feemouth Yard
path had returned, killed the weeds and flattened the path, so approval was
given for the balance owing to be paid. There
was nothing to report on the Village Hall, all work being completed and
paid for. The PC thanked the Village Hall Committee for their work in renovating
the Hall and for all the support they give local organisations. The
surfacing work required on the playground equipment has been completed,
the area is only fenced off because it is so boggy following the work. Quotes
for the work required on the allotment land have still not been received
from all the three contractors invited to tender, and it now seems unlikely they
are going to tender. As three are required before making a decision of this
financial magnitude, nothing can be progressed yet. It was decided to split the
work into landscaping and walling elements to see if further quotes could be
obtained. Under maintenance,
it was noted that the new ‘No fouling’ signs have been placed by the
recreation ground. A letter
from DDDC failed to suggest any alternative locations for the glass recycling
bins. It was alleged that the recycling trailer had failed to arrive in two of
the last three months, and DDDC will be chased up about this again. The
issue of the old cross in the churchyard has been raised with the PCC,
but it is still not clear who is responsible for its upkeep. It requires similar
work to the cross on the green. Further investigations into ownership will have
to take place. Correspondence:
A letter has been received from the PC’s solicitors regarding the unauthorised
gate onto the recreation ground; the contents are ‘sub judice’, so to speak!
Lengthy consideration was given to a letter from a member of the public, also
concerning the gate. The letter questioned the value to the parish of spending
£3000 on legal fees merely to stop people getting onto the recreation ground,
which after all is a public area. After much consideration, all the councillors
felt that their decision to pursue this matter was valid and correct and all
stood by that decision. The PC felt that this issue is not simply one of
preventing one person’s private access to the ground. It has been a
long-standing and long upheld policy that there should be no private access and
the PC felt the policy was legitimate and was in the interests of the community
as a whole. Councillors felt that allowing gates would encourage adjacent
householders to treat the ground as an extension to their gardens and that would
be the start of a slippery slope. There have been several incidents of
unauthorised tipping of garden waste onto the recreation ground in the past, and
having gates to facilitate access would be a factor further encouraging this.
The recreation ground had been given to the community by benefactors and is a
valuable asset to the village both in a social context and financially. The PC
felt it was their duty to preserve the amenity to be passed on to succeeding
generations and not to allow its integrity to be eroded. The land should not be
viewed as an extension to adjoining properties gardens; the council pays for its
upkeep, is legally liable for the land and, potentially, any happenings on it.
Just because there are footpaths across the ground does not imply any other
right of way across the land. As regards the cost to the Council, and so to the
parishioners, it was noted that the £3000 was merely reserved from next
year’s precept, not necessarily money to be actually spent. The issue may be
resolved for £30, £3000 or no cost at all, and the Council hoped it would not
be necessary to utilise the £3000. Even in the worst case, if the matter went
to court, and the Council won the case – and it has been advised it has a good
chance of doing so – any costs would be recoverable. The Council has also been
in touch with DDDC over the matter, as DDDC have much experience of similar
cases. A letter
has been received from Ashford Parish Council inviting adjacent parishes to
participate in their placing of parish boundary markers as part of their
millennium celebrations. The PC voted to accept the offer and to pay half of the
cost of having two gritstone marker posts erected on the parishes’ boundary. A
letter has been received from a resident of Butts Road complaining about
vehicles being parked on the verges. The Council is to write back asking for
further details in order to pursue the matter. The verges and greens in the
village are not for parking, and the Council is opposed to any misuse. It was
also noted that the footpath on Main Street often has parked vehicles on it,
which is actually illegal as well as inconvenient for pedestrians. DDDC have
written to inform the PC that they now have a ‘lottery grant expert’ on
their staff [an expert on picking the winning numbers would be of more use,
Ed] and the PC is welcome to make use of this specialist. As a consequence
of the audit of the accounts, the PC has had to contact HM Customs and Excise
regarding the VAT on the millennium mugs, who have now responded with the
definitive statement on the issue. It would seem that Council should refund some
VAT claimed back, but there is no mechanism to do so! Finally,
all present participated in a minute’s silence to remember Arthur Slater, a
long-time member of the Parish Council, who died last month. The next
meeting is on 17th January, at 7:30 in the Village Hall. All
members of the public are welcome to attend. There may also be an open meeting
in January to discuss the Glebe Mines proposal. Date to be announced nearer the
time. |