Parish Council Meeting 20th February 2002

The meeting was opened at 7:30, with Cllr. Cox in the chair. Cllrs. Bowering, Finney, Askew, Fawcett, Casey, DDDC Councillor Crowther were present and Cllr. Hirst submitted his apologies. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved, with no matters arising.

A planning application for a garden shed at Iona, Longreave Lane was approved, and PPPB approvals for a change of use of part of 2, Harrow Cottages and the demolition and rebuilding of Iona, Longreave Lane noted. More controversially, the PC heard that PPPB approval has been given for the demolition of existing garden store/potting shed and erection of 2 bedroomed guest accommodation with potting shed at Church Lady House, Main Street. Apparently this has been approved unanimously by the PPPB, whereas the Parish Council were unanimously opposed to it. The PC were against it on the grounds that it was not in character with the main building or surrounding buildings (it will have cedar timber cladding), and the danger that approval in this case would set a dangerous precedent for future ‘turn a shed into a house’-type applications. Allegedly, the PPPB’s main reason for the approval is that it would avoid having an extension on a listed building. The PC were most upset that their opinions had apparently been ignored in the planning decision, but Cllr. Mrs Crowther said that although she had passed on the PC’s objections to the PPPB, they were not expressed forcibly or explicitly enough for her to argue the case.
 

The bank balances of £1000 the current account and £7127.58 in the deposit account noted. Minor payments totalling £2368.53 were approved, the single largest being to DDDC for £1292.50 for mowing the recreation ground.
 

The Community Woodlands Officer from the PDNPA, Emma Mortimer, was then invited to explain to the Council the plans for Great Longstone Woods (perhaps more generally known just as ‘the Mires’). The PC had previously expressed concern over access difficulties, the costs and potential misuse. Ms. Mortimer explained that the plans had been revised to try to improve access and suggested that the school visits to the site be made safer by using the back gate, from the footpath. WREN funding had been obtained for the project, and only 10% of the cost was needed to be found to obtain the grant. The Parish would not be expected to fund anything. The PC expressed concern that if access was improved, the woodlands could be ‘misused’, possibly becoming a dumping ground or a haven for underage drinking or drug-taking. Ms. Mortimer acknowledged the site could possibly be misused but there wasn’t much that could be done about this, and any piece of ground could be subject to similar misuse. The outcome was that about half the Council supported the plans, the rest opposed, but as the Council has no say in what happens (the land belongs to the PDNPA), this was immaterial.
 

The meeting then moved onto the next item, the notorious Feemouth Yard Gates issue. It would seem that the matter had been considered in advance by the Council, as Cllr. Cox immediately proposed a compromise solution, that the top gate would be retained, but modified to allow pushchair and wheelchair access and the bottom gate be reinstated in its original form, with the adjacent large, wooden gate providing pushchair access. This was unanimously agreed by the Councillors. The PDNPA have offered to arrange for their blacksmith to repair, modify and reinstate the gates, at no cost to the Parish. The PDNPA will provide a firm proposal in time for the next PC meeting. The petition started by Mrs. Hawksworth had collected about 300 names in less than a month and Cllr. Finney expressed his delight that so many people in the village were so concerned about losing a part of village’s past they were motivated enough to add their names to the list. Such concern and interest in preserving the village heritage was heartening to see. The Council were also unanimous in expressing their regret at upsetting so many villagers; it was a decision taken in good faith at the time, with the best of intentions, but they had not realised the depth of feeling that would result.
 

There was no update on Backdale Quarry or Longstone Edge.
 

The Council’s application for a WREN grant for the West Green had been refused. This was a major setback and as there are no other sources of funds available a revision to the plans was required. Cllr. Fawcett suggested that the project did not have to be done in ‘one go’, and could be completed in phases, year by year. This was agreed, and it was further agreed that the best plan would probably be to try to get the walling done and the tree felled this year (using the funds previously set aside for possible legal fees), then budget for further funding in next year’s (2003/4) precept.
 

The flooding on the allotments had been investigated, and the culvert located by digging. However it was silted up, which probably explained the increase in surface water lately. Opinion was that a new drain would be required, but it was resolved that a site meeting take place before making any decision. Enquiries about possible lead contamination of the plots with the EHO had brought forth the information that testing would cost £80 for the first sample, and £52 for subsequent samples. The PC thought this was rather too expensive and the cost could not be justified. It was suggested that plot holders be asked for the costs of testing, if they thought it worthwhile. The Clerk will include this in the next invoice for the plot rentals. There are now three vacant plots, and anyone interested in one should contact The Clerk To The Parish Council, Sarah Stokes, on 640851. The plots are free for the first year, then £5 pa.
 

The next item on the agenda was Maintenance. It was noted that the new ‘No Dogs’ signs had been put up. Even better, they were still there. The netball post had been put up; the matting would be provided shortly, but upon consideration the Council decide against adding netting to the hoop. The Wickstead Safety Inspection of the equipment on the Recreation Ground had listed several minor issues, but nothing major. A site meeting was arranged to go through these and prioritise them. A request had been received to paint the goalposts, and it was agreed this would be done. The exact location of the new street light on Station Road was required before a firm quotation for it could be obtained from DCC. This would be done shortly. A letter to DCC would be sent regarding the state of the footpath from The Crispin to Butts Road. The heavy rain lately had brought attention to the many blocked drains in the parish: Moor Road, Beggarway Lane, Church Lane, Longreave Lane and Station Road (again). A response to the letter requesting that the Eyam Community bus route be gritted had been received – the response was ‘no’.
 

The Clerk had asked Thornhill House for details of their medical staff so this could be sent back in response to the request for information to form the Civil Emergency plan.
 

The DTLC have requested that the Clerk and a Councillor attend a Code Of Conduct seminar. All local councillors will have to agree to abide by the new code of conduct, and sign up to it. The general feeling was that all the new laws regarding local (and parish) government was strangling it in red tape and regulations. It was felt that many people would no longer want to serve their communities if there were so many hoops to jump through in order to do it. It was suggested that the strategy behind these changes was to concentrate ‘local’ government at a regional level EG East Midlands, by making parish and district councils powerless.
 

Concern has been raised that apparently the new houses on Glebe Avenue are no longer available for sale, but can only be rented from the developer. This is against the terms of the original planning permission, as the houses were intended to be for ‘local needs’. A letter will be sent to the PPPB regarding this.
 

Mr Turner has written to the Parish Council asking if it would be prepared to sell some land he rents from them on Moor Road (the old quarry). After some discussion covering both the principle of selling Parish-owned land and the historic importance of the site, it was decided that the land would not be sold.
 

Numerous items of correspondence were noted, the only items being discussed in any detail being: the next Community Area Forum in the area will be 20th May in Youlgreave Village Hall at 7pm; a letter has been received from Wirksworth Parish Council raising the issue of the newly introduced charges for removing large items of rubbish. Wirksworth are very worried that the charges will result in the countryside being used as a free dumping ground for fridges, cookers, suites etc. Cllr. Mrs Crowther said the charges had been introduced as part of DDDC’s the ‘Best Value’ plan. The PC agreed with Wirksworth that the charges would undoubtedly increase fly tipping and that ‘Best Value’ was questionable if – in the end – the District Council had to move the rubbish anyway, but in the process the countryside was despoiled; Finally, a letter from the PPPB informed the Council that a revision to planning applications approvals procedures was being be made so that in future the decision on 90% of applications would be by officers of the Board and only 10% would be considered by the Planning Board.
 

The next meeting will be on 20th March, at 7:30pm in the Village Hall.

Chris Raynor