Wiveton
Parish Council.
ChairmanÕs Report. 15.
05. 2007
The Parish Council has met on 9
occasions throughout the past year, we did not meet in August or December, and
we did not meet in November.
Seats on the Green
Quite soon after the last AGM we
began investigating the cost of a new seat for the ÔGreenÕ and after some
searching which took a little time, found that Fakenham Garden Centre could
supply one very similar to the one we had at a cost of £450.00. This was also the best price we had
obtained up to that point, so this was chosen. It was duly delivered and once we had obtained the
materials, members of the council prepared the site, laid a concrete base and
the seat was installed.
Also at this time John Ratcliff
made a wonderful job of refurbishing the seat by the Church gate and inspected
the other seat opposite the but shelter and confirmed that it was in need of
some refurbishment but otherwise was perfectly sound, although not of the
quality of the other two seats on the green. This still is to be done and although sadly John is no
longer on the council, I am sure he will complete the refurbishment for us when
he has time.
Land to the Rear of the Parish
Room.
This report appears in the minutes of
our June 2006 minutes,
John Ramm
informed the Councillors that following the Annual General Meeting of the
Parish Room Committee the consensus of those present was not to sell any
assets, which belong to the village. They felt the land to the rear of
the village hall should be kept for use of the village residents once the area of land had been cleared and the boundaries
redefined. Everyone had been asked
to put forward ideas for the use of this land over the next few months.
Planning.
We have had
no controversial planning applications during the last years and we objected to
just one for a studio/annex at Beacon End. This was also rejected by NNDC and
further more modest plans have been submitted and I believe accepted.
July
Planning Application ref: 20060973.
Erection of
Residential Annexe with Studio Above.
Dear Mr
Gannon,
Wiveton Parish Council have had a site meeting in respect of the above application
and our conclusions are as follows.
1. The site is outside the village
building envelope in an area of high landscape value as well as the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area and is also in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
2. The site is accessed by a rough track
and previous applications to develop sites accessed by this track have been
turned down on highway access grounds.
3. The building upon which this
application is grounded is a temporary structure without proper
foundations, if it is deemed adequate justification for planning permission to
be granted it would surely set a precedent that would allow anyone in the
village with a shed in their garden to apply for residential accommodation?
4. The existing building is almost
invisible in the wider landscape because it has become over grown by the
hedge which screens it completely. However, if it were not for the hedge this
position commands wonderful views. It seems inconceivable that once having
a studio in such a spot that one would eventually not want the hedge
removed in order to obtain those views.
This would then make the building very visible in the landscape to say
nothing of the loss of the hedge. In any case, the construction of the new building
would require much of this hedge to be removed.
5. Finally the existing building has a
shallow angled roof line [30¡] and the new building with its studio above would require
a much steeper pitch [45¡] so although the planned building is being set into the
ground we feel certain that to accommodate all that is wanted it will have to
be higher than the existing.
Wiveton Parish Council therefore objects to this application.
Yours sincerely
Godfrey Sayers
Chair. Wiveton Parish Council Beaconend, Hall Lane - Erection of replacement double garage – Permission for
development
Beaconend, Hall Lane - Erection of residential annexe with
studio – Refusal of permission for development
Wiveton Stone Bridge.
The bridge which had been damaged
in 2005 was repaired in the autumn of 2006 the quality of the work leading us
to believe that the work had been done by school children, it was amateurish in
the extreme. We complained to NCC
through Derek Baxter and their response was not much more professional that the
actual work, saying something like Ò the work does leave a little to be desired
but we are satisfiedÓ. We were not
and took the matter to English Heritage who inspected it, agreed with us, and
told NCC they must redo it. This
they promised to do in the spring when the weather improved, but I guess that
unless we keep on at them it will be like all the other jobs they have promised
to do for us. It just will not be
done. The service we get from NCC
Highways is appalling. I am not criticising Derek here, he an excellent
councillors for us, but if they were a commercial enterprise, they would be out
of business in a week.
Traffic Calming
In June of 2006, the Council agreed to replace the unpopular
green and cream village entrance signs with re-cast versions of the original
Wiveton sign in Hall Lane. It was
also agreed that a speed message of an ÔoriginalÕ and noticeable kind might
also be cast in the same format carrying the words ÒSlow Yew Down Ó The Wiveton
signs cost £78.00 each and these were delivered in September and have been
painted and erected.
The cost of the larger speed
reduction signs was approx £200.00 each and as our precept would not stretch to
three of these we decided to leave them until this year, although now we have
an election to pay for we may be stretched to do that.
However, IÕm sure the new council
will remain committed to slowing traffic through the village and IÕm confident
that there is more that we can and will do and that an unconventional approach
using devices that catch peopleÕs attention will have an effect on driver
behaviour where the ubiquitous thirty or twenty MPH signs do not.
LDF
2006 saw the first draft of NNDCÕs
Local Development Framework which is the plan that will replace the North Norfolk
Local Plan and will set the planning rules for years ahead. This plan has been shaped for the most
part by housing development targets set by Government and executed through the
East Of England Development Agency.
This of means that the broad structure of it was decide long before we
got the opportunity to comment and although we made a formal response, do not
be fooled, we are just dotting IÕs and crossing TÕs. The consultation was cosmetic, however, I should add that
neither the NCC nor NNDCÕs are at fault for that, they are just trying to make
the best of a bad job.
The main points of our response
concerned the sheer scale of development being proposed and development in
small villages and settlements.
The LDF proposed that development should be confined entirely to towns
and selected larger villages.
Village like ours would be designated Open Countryside and no
development would be allowed.
While none of us would want to see
Wiveton ruined by development, we felt that to not allow any would lead to
stagnation, particularly if affordable housing were also to ruled out.
I have copies of our response if
anyone is interested.
Joint meeting of PC, PCC, and
Raul Greenaway Trust.
The first of these was held on the
24 th April and was successful in agreeing to set up a CareLine scheme for
elderly or dependant people living in Wiveton. I personally think this could be
a very important scheme for enabling dependant people to stay her in their
homes an therefore the village a little longer than they might otherwise be
able to. I am convinced that for
this idea to get off the ground and work it will need small number 4 or 5
perhaps to oversee and coordinate it.
Already since the meeting, the need for such a system has been
demonstrated.
Allotted Land
Before I conclude I want to say a word or two about Parish
Land and in particular the area we now describe as allotted land situated
between Rosemeade and Rushes Point.
During my time as chairman, this
has been of continual concern to me.
The reason for that concern being that for some of that time, the three
tenants of that land have all been Parish Councillors. This is quite simply a coincidence, all
three of us were tenants of the land before we became councillors; and use the
land because of how we make a living, not because we are councillors. Nevertheless, to anyone who does not
know the particular circumstances it could seem otherwise, and for that reason
has always seemed like this councilÕs AchillesÕ heel.
The Code of Conduct made it clear
that anyone with a clear pecuniary interest could not take part in discussions
relevant to that interest. In
2001, we put this straight by setting up the Allotted Land Committee. Its terms of reference are the same as
those for the Parish Room Committee; in short, it has complete autonomy, only
needing to come back to the council for funding. The committee is comprised of non-tenant councillors,
with one tenant only to represent and speak for the others. Until
recently, this has not been strictly in line with the Code of Conduct, but a
recent revision of this rule (because others beside us, were concerned that
people should have a voice in affairs that directly concerns their welfare) now
makes this acceptable, although anyone with a vested interest still cannot
vote. There is also the issue of
transparency, the sub committeeÕs actions are all minuted, but unlike this
council they do meet regularly, only when there is a particular item to
discuss, and this may mean that they do not meet for a year or two at a
time.
This also means that technically
all the tenants can now remain and take part in any debate regarding the land,
and while in most situations I would consider this an improvement, in our
particular situation I would still have had serious concerns regarding vested
interest, because to have three councillors with an interest on such a small
council would have a disproportionate influence on any debate, which cannot be
right, even if the Code says it is.
However, with Gary no longer a member of the council this should not be
a problem, as I keep well clear of it.
I hope this clarifies how this particular piece of land is managed and
reassures anyone who may have had had concerns about it.
Conclusion.
That concludes my annual report
for 2007, the least busy year of the last councilÕs term, the ending of which
coincides with that Parish CouncilÕs term of office, and because two of that
team will not be with us for the next term I cannot leave this report without
mentioning some of the successes we had over that time, none of which would
have been achieved without all the individuals who made up that council.
1. Employing our influence on the N T Õs Blakeney Area
Advisory Group we had a significant role in determining the final appearance of
the new Glaven Channel.
2. Using the leverage we had earlier achieved when regaining
control of our Parish Pits (we own the land over which NCC have their entrance
to the Downs) we forged an agreement with NCC to jointly manage Wiveton Downs.
3. We
constructed (and I mean we, because we did the actual work) the new Footpath
alongside Cley Hill and collected the 2005 Environment Award for it, which
subsequently paid for our very enjoyable Village Party that we had later that
year.
4. We have built our own Web Site so villagers and village
exiles can keep an eye on all that we do.
5. Finally, we have put a new seat on the Green and
re-furbished the old one by the Church gate; none of these are major
achievements, but they are things done by us, by your councillors. We do not get expensive contractors in
to do the work, we do it. The path
was cleared and prepared by us; the base for the new seat was dug out and laid
by members of the council the old seat was re-furbished by John Ratcliff. The benefits of this are twofold, first
it means we get the work done the way we want and second it saves the council
money thus enabling us to keep our precept down and therefore your council tax.
John and Gary were vital members
of the council in this respect and I must thank them for their efforts, and
hope that even though they are no longer on the council that we may call upon
their services in future. Thanks
to both of you!
Further to that, I must thank our
clerk and all the other members of the council for their hard work, their
support, and their loyalty to me and to you and finally Mr Bernard Crowe who
has been an excellent District Councillors for us. In my thirty odd years doing this stuff, he is the best I have
encountered.
That concludes my report for 2006/
2007
Godfrey Sayers
Chairman
Wiveton Parish Council