The meeting was opened promptly at 7:30, with Cllr. Bowering in the chair. There were only five councillors present, apologies being received from Cllrs. Hirst and Cox, and DDDC Cllr. Mrs. Crowther. The minutes were approved, with one matter arising: Cllr. Finney - who was himself absent at the last meeting - queried whether the four councillors present at last month’s meeting constituted a quorum. After some discussion, it was concluded it probably didn’t, as some councillors could vaguely remember a past Council decision that five councillors were needed for a quorum. The Clerk was asked to search through past minutes for the Council’s deliberations on the issue and to report back with the previously agreed figure next month.

There were four planning applications to consider. The first was an amended proposal for 6, The Meadows. When previously submitted the Council felt the extension to the property were too big for the available space. The revised proposal was smaller and the Council passed this unanimously. Alterations at Beech House, Great Longstone were similarly passed unanimously, as the proposals did not affect the external appearance of the building in any significant manner. A more contentious issue was an amendment to the design of a new building, Iona, on Longreave Lane. The proposed change was to add two roof-lights. The Clerk reported that he had heard from Cllr. Mrs. Crowther that the whole project had been put on hold by the PPPB, but the Parish Council considered the actual application before them as a response was required for the PPPB. It appeared that adjacent residents were strongly opposed to the change, as the new windows would overlook their properties. The Council felt they could not make a decision based upon plans alone, and arranged a site visit (and presumably an additional council meeting) for Saturday 24th August, when a decision would be made. Finally, a proposal for the erection of new industrial buildings on Great Longstone Business Park and a change of use of part of the park from industrial to residential was considered. Again, the Council felt they could only grasp what was involved if they saw the site, so another site visit was arranged for Saturday.

Under finance, the balances were noted as £1,000 in the current and £10,110.56 in the deposit account. Two payments were approved, for the village hall cleaning and for the new walling around the allotments.

The saga of the allotments and West Green then continued with a bumper edition. Nothing had yet been heard from WREN, although the Council had received previous indications that some grant would be forthcoming. The PPPB had given permission for the walling to be completed.

Cllr. Finney then queried whether the final plans (circulated in the past month, after numerous revisions and discussions with the PDNPA and PPPB) described what the village needed or indeed whether the results would even be suitable for the land and surroundings. The word ‘green’ would be taken by most people to mean open grassy area, but the final plans showed the addition of 130 shrubs and three new, full-sized trees. Surely this was a shrubbery, not a green. Cllr. Bowering said he had taken advice on the level of planting, and the PPPB had concurred. Cllr. Mrs. Gregory said this seemed a staggering amount of planting and asked how thick it would be. Apparently 130 shrubs would result in an average density of three shrubs per square metre. The councillors were not happy to hear this. The discussion then ranged freely over several topics: would the established shrubs block the view of drivers pulling out of Croft Road? How could the land be maintained with so many shrubs and trees on it? The cost of maintenance would be prohibitive once the trees and shrubs became larger. What would the adjacent householders think about having what would become a fairly dense thicket near them? Was it justifiable to spend over £9,000 of public money on the project? Cllr. Finney felt that in return for a grant (as yet unconfirmed and unquantifiable) the PPPB had taken over the project and completely changed it from what the Council had wanted for the village. He reminded councillors that it had been previously agreed that the Council would ‘do it alone’ and not rely on grants from the PDNPA because of the very issue that had now arisen, the loss of control of the project.

Thus, after two years of considerations, a further 35 minutes of discussion this meeting, as the project nears its conclusion the general mood of the councillors was that they were not getting what they wanted and the plans should be revised and/or the project put on hold until it could be re-targeted to the village’s requirements. However, the only firm decision that was taken was that the PDNPA would be rung and asked if the level of planting could be decreased from that in the plans currently with the Authority for the grant application.

Continuing on further topics under Maintenance… A letter from Mrs Ludlam was considered. The contents were not revealed, but from the discussions it could finally be deduced that it referred to the state of the bushes on Feemouth Yard, and Mrs. Ludlam was complaining that one in particular was blocking her light. The Council agreed that the bushes were too big (again) and needed some ruthless cutting back. It was resolved to obtain three quotes and go ahead with the work as soon as the leaves started to drop.

Next to the subject of the ‘no dogs’ signs on the recreation ground. A discussion as to the actual location of the real footpaths started again, but was curtailed by the Chairman who pointed out that the Council knew where the paths were and the current issue was the addition of new signs. The Clerk reported that he had obtained an indication of the price of new signs and that it would be no more expensive to replace the signs than to add secondary signs. Initially, this was agreed as the solution to be adopted. There then followed lengthy exchanges to try and decide the wording for the signs. It seemed every possibly permutation of the words ‘dogs’, ‘on leads’, ‘allowed’, ‘on footpaths’ and ‘only’ was suggested and considered but nothing could be agreed upon. Consideration was then given to the secondary sign plan again. Eventually it was decided that as no one knew the actual wording on the signs already there, no decision could be taken. The issue will be discussed again next month.

The Council also heard two reports of dogs, whose owners were known, fouling verges and the recreation ground. It was decided best to do nothing until the correct signs were in place. The topic was placed on next month’s agenda for discussion to decide a policy on the matter.

A replacement bin had been obtained for the children’s play area, but not fitted yet. The supplier’s site visit for the new climbing frame had not yet occurred; the Clerk said he suspected nothing would happen until a firm order was placed and so it was resolved to do this. The meeting trudged onto the topic of footpaths… It has been confirmed that the path to the rear of Harrow House was DCC’s responsibility so the request for repairs was with them. Cllr. Finney reported for a second time on the poor state of the footpath on Main Street. DCC will be informed by letter and requested to repair the path. Arrangements have been made to repair the bus shelter roof, and a quote obtained for repainting. This was accepted and the work is to go ahead. There had been some concern about the asbestos sheet roof, but Cllr. Bowering had spoken to DDDC about this and they had said there was absolutely no problem while it remained in situ. It was reported that a local resident had voluntarily cleaned up the bottle bank area and it now looked much better. Cllr. Askew said he was regularly checking the bins and telephoning the collection company as soon as they were full. It was hoped the area would remain as clean and tidy as at present.

There was nothing to report on Backdale Quarry, Longstone Edge, the Kim Bramley Fund, Neighbourhood Watch (although still needing a co-ordinator).

The Clerk reported that the PPPB are still ignoring all his attempts to contact them regarding Glebe Court but Cllr. Mrs. Crowther reported that the person she was trying to speak to was on extended leave. It was agreed to leave the matter with Cllr. Mrs. Crowther for now.

The Clerk reported that he had found someone willing to be the new internal auditor. The new auditing procedures will save the Council £165 every year and it was resolved to pay the new auditor a large proportion of this saving.

The new electrical box on the green (used by the Christmas tree lights) should be installed this week.

There were 18 items of correspondence received, those considered included: a donation of £500 for the West Green from Fosca, letters of thanks for charitable donations made by the Council, various information letters and leaflets from the Peak Park, five communications from DALC, including one rather puzzling one urging the Parish Council to increase the precept, the reason for this being unexplained. One additional item of correspondence was considered, from a resident on Main Street. This expressed concern about the congestion on Main Street, which was resulting in cars driving on the pavement in order to pass parked cars and speeding to get through the long single-track length. The Council didn’t doubt that these things happened, and the problems had been long-standing, but could see no alternative to the current state of affairs and as a Parish Council had no powers to do anything about it anyway. It was resolved to forward the letter to PC Lowe, the village’s Beat Manager.

The next meeting will be on 18th September, a change to the previously published date.

Chris Raynor