|
THE BARROWDEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
Meeting held at The Pynot, Barrowden on Wed 27th. August 2008.
In attendance: - Mike Conway, Jennifer Hughes-Nurse, Valerie Jones, Arthur and Janet Maguire, Rosemary Roberts, Irene Scott, Frances Traves and Mo. Welchman.
Apologies :- Graham Welchman.
Item 1 Chairman’s Report.
It is my considered opinion that this current Parish Council has a disruptive element that monopolise the voting procedure. On both our major projects they have not been consultative, have made decisions which consider a minority element of the village. Their decision making has not been consistent, and indeed have changed their mind to the extent that the planning authorities ascertained they objected to our proposals. This disgraceful behaviour looks like costing the village about £3000, the loss of this major project, and the waste of a lot of villager’s hard work. The group were appointed and funded by the previous P.C. and have injected about £65000 into the village at very little expense to the council precept, and have the trust of all agencies. The group do all the work yet the council do not have the decency to consult us on matters regarding these major projects.
It is my opinion that we should continue the campaigning, pay off our bills and hopefully finish this project. Then as discussed at our last meeting we resign and inform the village in a concluding end of year statement published in the Parish Magazine, for it is apparent in spite of the Parish Councils shortcomings they will conclude their term of office.
Whilst I wish to thank all group members past and present for their patience and hard work; I must record in an accurate fashion my views of the current Parish Council. They are a council of inconsiderate residents who cannot see the big picture, lack consistency, and are disgracefully unaware of their inability to make decisions based on good communication and known facts. Whilst they have chosen to be Parish Councillors, they attend meetings ill prepared, and vote on issues without knowledge of the eventual outcome; and indeed are not aware of current legislation.
In conclusion the planners approved the seat and information plinth area, and our P.C. supported the complainant. This resident does nothing for the village, and has retaining wall that is both dangerous and does not retain her garden. Why didn’t they tell the complainant.
Arthur Maguire
Item 2 Parish Councillors Report.
Councillor Roberts felt that the P.C. had supported the group, and that the alternative site proposed for the plinth and seat was a constructive way forward. Councillor Roberts was informed this proposed site was unlikely to conform to D.D.A. legislation and secondly the group do not have further funding.
Item 3 Discussion on Village Pond.
The results of The Parish Plan was read out and the research and work concluded that of the 179 responses (74% of all residents) residents required improved water flow, reeds, fish and ducks. Indeed we have surpassed this by also creating a new water inlet, painted the fence, maintained the grass and situated two new duckhouses on the pond. It was also confirmed that all the ducks currently on the pond had been introduced by F. Traves. The letters submitted to the P.C. by residents were read out, and acknowledged that there was a petition signed by 42 residents. The response by the P.C. was read out. The group were disgusted by the comments made in the letters, bearing in mind the request made in the Parish Plan; plus the fact that the P.C. made decisions on these letters and petitions without consultation with the group who do the work. Whilst the group do not agree with the decisions made, they are sympathetic to villager’s requirements. It was confirmed that a work party to introduce some flag (iris), trim the reeds, paint the fence, put new straw in the duckhouses and cleanse the water had been cancelled. The opinion was that if the mentioned petitioners and Parish Council both did not wish to consider the groups efforts, maybe the mentioned 42 petitioners be contacted to maintain the pond.
The following proposal was put forward by M. Conway.
Following the recent petition to the Parish Council, it is clear that there is a body of opinion to reinstate the “duck race” and model boat sailing on the pond; but is also highly critical of the day to day management of the pond. Whilst the group feel that the former problem could be resolved with good will and negotiation, the tone of the petition is so critical of the way the pond is currently managed that the group feel unable to continue this role.
M. Conway therefore proposed that the Environmental Group relinquish the management of the pond into the control of the Parish Council, with the suggestion that perhaps some of the signatories to the petition might find themselves able to become involved and manage the pond in a manner that they would approve.
This was seconded by J Hughes Nurse and passed with one abstention.
Item 4 Discussion on the Information Plinth and Seating Area.
The minutes with reference to the above, from the Parish Council minutes of 26th. Feb. 2008 was read out. Based on the vote taken at that meeting the selected builder was instructed to proceed, and the Planning Enforcement Officer concerned, confirmed planning approval at that stage was not required. Since starting 90% of the work quoted for has now been completed. The groups 3 minute response to the Planning and Licensing committee was read out, and highlighted notes from the meeting agenda read out as follows:- The ground level in the garden of No 2 The Tannery is 400mm or so above the retaining wall. The Parish Council in principle approves the plinth and seat subject to relocation to the west as previously agreed with neighbours (effectively an objection). It is clear from the comments of the Parish Council that the works are not permitted development and that collectively it does not support the proposal. The Planning Officer recommended APPROVAL of the proposal, subject to two conditions which the group were in agreement with. One letter was received against the proposal, and three in support. Two from long term resident councillors and one neighbour.
It was then noted that a group of County councillors lead by Coun. H. Rees were concerned about the resident’s security due to the low retaining wall. The Chairman did comment that the concerned resident could and should apply some form of upper retention to the wall structure.
A vote was then taken and the group’s application was turned down.
The group feel that the P.C. after approving detailed plans on the 26th. Feb.; then reneged on their decision, when confronted by the complainant. This latter decision did not take into account the fact that the very low retaining wall of No2 The Tannery is not fit for purpose. The wall, neither retains soil, debris or garden plants, nor indeed due to its height, does not offer security. i.e. The security risk is self inflicted.
It was generally felt that not only the group, but the whole village had been let down by the Parish Council who had not taken due consideration off all the facts, particularly when the Planning officer who had considered the P.C. decision still recommended approval.
The debate was then concluded and Valerie Jones then indicated that the P.C. had rescinded on their decision made following a presentation on the 26th. February; at which appropriate drawings and plans were shown. A vote was taken by the council to support the project. Five voted in favour of the project and one abstained. She then proposed: - That the information plinth and seating area be passed on to the Parish Council for completion.
This proposal was seconded by Mike Conway and unanimously accepted.
Item 5 Discussion on Financial Matters.
In the absence of Graham Welchman, his wife Mo reported that a cheque had been received from the Cory Trust for £519.03 and the group had a balance at the bank of £534 27.
The chair then explained that all payments to creditors was to be paid through the P.C. to ensure that V.A.T. was reclaimed. He explained that the group owed creditors currently approx. £600 and this went back to May. On the 11th. June he had received a letter from the P.C. indicating that the creditors will be paid when the planning application had been approved. Work and purchases had been made on the strength of the vote at parish level, and in his opinion these creditors should be paid.
He proposed that the amounts owed to Barkers Signs and Mr. and Mrs Scott be paid. The amount to Mr. and Mrs. Maguire to be held as overdue, and the account when received from Moss Beck; which would now be inflated by the expenses incurred over planning details, is submitted including V.A.T. to the Cory Trust. The planning expenses indeed had been unnecessarily incurred due to the lack of support from the Parish Council.
This proposal was seconded by Valerie Jones and unanimously accepted.
Item 6 A.O.B. and the way forward.
Debate and discussion ensued and bearing in mind the chairman’s comments in paragraph 2 of his report, Mike Conway made the following observations:-
It has become increasingly clear that the current P.C. and the E.G. are finding it more and more difficult to work together in a way that will benefit the village. The group has lost confidence in a Council that for instance, in one meeting voted overwhelmingly to support its proposals, and subsequently voted to overturn the same plans without any communication of this to the group, or indeed to offer any explanation as to the reasons. We feel that the current situation is irremediable, and if it continues will lead to more ill feeling in the village.
He then went on to propose the following:-
The Environmental Group in its entirety, resign forthwith and return the management of all environmental matters in the village to the Parish Council. We will of course honour all the financial commitments for work undertaken at our behest, and any residual funds returned to its donors.
This proposal was seconded by Janet Maguire and passed unanimously.
Last updated: 30 September 2008
.
Back to top |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
