WIVETON PARISH COUNCIL
Chairman: Mr Godfrey Sayers
Clerk’s
Address: Morning
Flight
42
High Street
Blakeney
NR25
7AL
Tel: 01263 741576
E-mail: wiveton@glavenvalleycouncils.co.uk
10th January 2007
The next Parish Council Meeting
will be held on Tuesday 16th January 2007 in the Parish Room at
7.30pm
PC Ken Durrant (if present)
3 Minutes of the last Meeting
4 Matters arising for information
5 Correspondence
6 Finance
7 Planning
8 A O B
8:1 To consider the possibility of holding a joint annual meeting between the three principle village organisations i.e. the Parish Council the Parochial Church Council, and the Raulf Greenaway Trust to examine ways in which we can work together.
8:2 To consider whether we wish to undertake a Village Appraisal.
8:3 Village Party
9 Parishioners
Question Time
11 The
next Parish Council meeting will be TUESDAY 20th FEBRUARY 2007
AT 7.30PM
Tricia Temple-Crowe
Before the commencement of the
Parish Council meeting the Chairman invited Fiona MacCallum from the Wells Area
Partnership to give a brief presentation on the Area Partnership initiative.
Minutes of Wiveton Parish Council
Meeting held on Tuesday 21st November 2006 at 7.30pm
Present: G Sayers, J Ratcliff, G Mears, M Wakelin, P Adcock, S Beal and J Ramm
In attendance: Councillor Bernard Crowe OBE, the Clerk and 1 parishioner
Apologies: Councillor Derek Baxter
Declarations of Interest No declarations of interest were declared.
Seat on the Green
John Ratcliff informed the
Councillors that he had carried out an inspection of the seat by the bus stop
and confirmed that the seat was in need of some refurbishment but was perfectly
sound although not of the quality of the two other seats on the green. Following a conversation with Graham
Bean, John Ratcliff went on to explain to the Council that a considerable
number of seats have been donated in memory of family members to the Parish of
Blakeney and if there was a surplus, it might be possible for one of the seats
to be made available to replace the seat by the bus stop.
Signage
The Chairman informed the Councillors that the three
aluminium ‘Wiveton’ signs have now be taken to Wensum Engineering to have some
holes drilled.
3 Correspondence
N.C.C.
Environment Agency:
C P R E - Voice
Blakeney Parish Council - Enclosing the Minutes of the Joint Planning Meeting which had taken place on Wednesday 15th November in the Blakeney Parish Office – attached.
N. N. D. C.
Area Forum – Newsletter – Copies distributed to Councillors
4 Finance
Open Spaces Maintenance The annual maintenance contract for 2007 was approved by the Councillors.
4 Finance
Continued
Village Street Party - Gary Mears suggested that a 50/50 Auction could be organised in April or May to raise funds for the bi-annual Village Street Party. The Councillors agreed that the Street Patrty should be included on the agenda for the next meeting.
Precept The Clerk distributed copies of the actual expenditure for 2004 – 2005, 2005 – 2006 and anticipated expenditure for 2006 – 2007 and 2007 - 2008. After careful consideration the Councillors were in agreement that in order to meet the cost of the proposed new speed restriction signage ‘Slow You Down Bor’ at a cost of approximately £200 each for 3 signs and the anticipated expenditure for the Council elections in May it would be necessary to increase the precept from £2,500 to £3,500.
Land to the Rear of the Parish
Room
Following the recent site meeting John Ramm informed the Council that this will be discussed by the Parish Room Committee at their next meeting.
Affordable Housing
Mary Wakelin has taken on responsibility for this investigation and will organise a meeting with Mr George Harcourt before the next meeting.
Meeting dates for 2007
Tuesday 16th January
Tuesday 20th February
Tuesday 20th March
Tuesday 17th April
Tuesday 15th May Annual
Report to Parishioners
Tuesday 19th June
No meeting in July
No meeting in August
Tuesday 18th September
Tuesday 16th October
Tuesday 20th November
No meeting in December
7 Reports
Report from Councillor Derek Baxter
New Car Park, Wells - Councillor Baxter informed the Parish Councillors that following consultation the NCC objections to the new car park application at Wells have been lifted.
Intensive Home Support - This initiative is to provide care in the home for elderly people to enable them to remain in their own homes for as long as possible.
Norwich City Council is to consider the introduction of
congestion charges.
Report from
Councilor Bernard Crowe OBE
SPIES IN BINS!
I have
received many queries about the possible use by NNDC of electronic chips in our
waste bins. The twin bins that
were introduced in North Norfolk two years ago do have bin-chips within them.
These cost £1 per bin on introduction and would cost now, I am told, £5 per bin
to retrofit them. So why are they there? Chips in bins would allow a Local
Authority to make an accurate record of both the number of bins lifted and the
weight of the bins on emptying. These figures can be linked to a property. The
use of bin chips is in preparation for a possible introduction of a ‘pay as you
throw’ system of charging for waste collection. However, there are no current
plans to change the present system. In order to read the bin-chips, it would be
necessary for all collection vehicles to have weighing equipment on board. They
do not have this equipment, and so NNDC is not collecting any information
today. I have an assurance that
any move to procure the weighing equipment would require Full Council
agreement. So why were bin-chips fitted? I am told that it made long term
economic sense in case Government changes the way we operate at present. Watch
this space!
DEVOLUTION
I am wading
through the 171 pages of the White Paper on Local Government. This is a
consultation exercise but does not have the additional input from the report by
Sir Michael Lyons who is examining the financial implication of change, and who
is to provide options for the future setting of Council Tax. We should receive
his report in December. Neither
report will have an impact on the setting of Council Tax for 2006/2007. They
will feed into the Comprehensive Spending Requirement 2007 which will cover the
years 2007/2008-2010/2011.
In the
meantime, some progress is being made on devolution to Town Area Partnerships
where they are encouraged to bid for funding to develop community partnerships
which are linked to NNDC’s priorities, and which can assist the authority in
achieving its own local area agreement targets. The start is slow but
significant. It works best where towns and parishes have achieved Quality
Status.
This
involves a requirement for councillors to be elected rather than co-opted, and
to be truly accountable to their residents. I believe that communities should
be making decisions for themselves about where public money is spent. It is
important that they have the freedom to make things happen, and to make a
difference in delivering good quality services at a reasonable cost to
residents. That is what people expect today but without large increases in
their council tax.
CANDIDATES’
EVENING
Elections
for the District Council will take place in May 2007. In preparation for this event, the Council held a briefing
for potential candidates of whom about thirty attended. The aim of the meeting
was to give candidates an idea of what it is like to be a District Councillor
and to meet present Councillors. I
was asked to conclude the evening. I attach below a summary of talk.
Councillors are
needed because in a democratic society an organisation elected by the public in
which the candidates live is the preferred way of achieving accountability.
Electors have the opportunity to dismiss members who fail the accountability
test and do not live up to expectations. Equally, they will be re-elected if
local people feel are batting for them.
The political groups had the opportunity of putting forward their agenda at election time when the residents decided who they wished to represent them, and in which direction they wished to travel for the next four years. That decision remains in place and will the subject of an another public agenda or manifesto in May 2007.
As the leader of the main opposition group, it is my duty to respect the choice of the electorate, and to work with the ruling group for the good and well being of the community.
So I support the common good which is often a similar aim: for example: more affordable housing, better shoreline protection, improving the way we do business, and become more customer friendly. We challenge other areas; for example the level of council tax.
We keep the balance between the agendas of the majority party and the opposition party by consultation. One means is an informal meeting between the three Leaders and the Chief Executive on a monthly basis. On a formal basis, the Scrutiny Committee reviews policy on a constructive basis and has the power to call-in decisions for a re-think. The chair is normally a member of the main opposition group. That is the situation here. The Government’s Audit Commission examines annually the Council’s performance, financial status and management of risk. It has recommended, and the Council has agreed, to form a powerful Audit Committee. This has the power to call before it any Committee Chairman and any officer with delegated financial powers. The Leader of the Council proposed me to be its Chairman, which as the Leader of the main opposition group, I have pledged to be wholly independent. I will also have the support of member of the Audit Commission on that Committee.
So why are councillors needed? It is because elected members are accountable to the voters. They are not co-opted. The increased amount of devolution from central to local government, and from District Councils to Town Area Partnerships will require elected representation as the devolution of funding cascades, hopefully, to local people. Councillors will have a wider and deeper role in their communities by working with the Partnerships, in addition to the range of activities you have heard about tonight. You will not be thrown-in at the deep end. The induction package is excellent. It covers decision-making, representation, staying in touch, and helping with your constituents. Having the opportunity speak and act on behalf of your constituents is a unique experience and a privilege. You will enjoy it if you accept the challenge.
May I wish all readers of the Glaven Valley Newsletter a happy and holy Christmas; and thank the editor and staff for another year of outstanding coverage.
Minutes of a meeting of ‘PARISH CHAIRMEN’, which was held on Wednesday 15th November 2006, at 7:00pm, in the Parish Office, Blakeney.
Present:- Mrs Ann Wootten (in the Chair).
Councillors:- Mr Graham Bean, Mr Tony Faulkner, Mr Barry
Girling & Mrs Jenny Girling (Blakeney Parish Council), Mr Richard Kelham (Cley Parish Council), Mr C Sherriff (Langham Parish Council), Mr A Lewsis (Letheringsett with Glandford),
Mrs Carol Bean & Mr Jim Temple (Morston
Parish Council), Mr Laurence Jordan (Stiffkey
Parish Council), Mr Godfrey Sayers & Mr
Stephen Beal (Wiveton Parish Council).
All files on planning are available to the public at District Council level. I always read the full contents of the planning applications, including the comments made by the Parish Councils. All applications can be classed into 2 areas. The first is where the local member feels that the application is of significant importance that it should be referred to the Development Committee, rather than be left to the decision making of one officer. This gives the local member the opportunity to speak. I am not a member of the Development Control Committee. I can only vote if I have been delegated to stand in for someone on this committee.
The second option is of course
where the decision is made by one delegated officer. I accept that the Parish Councils want more consultation and
greater feedback. I accept that I
have no always provided enough feedback to satisfy the Parish Councils. We can change this and I can give you
constant feedback if you want me to.
CLEY – (Richard Kelham – Chairman) - Henry Cordeaux is our member, and is on the Development Control Committee West, and most applications within the parish are non contentious.
One major concern is the Old
Barns at Newgate Farm. Planning
permission was established back in 1988, however work has recently taken place,
and yet no new planning notices whatsoever have been issued. *Q. Can Parish
Councils please be provided with a list of dormant planning consents, which may crop up in the near future? Members generally felt that this was a good idea, and Bernard agreed to take this back to the Planning Department.
*Q. What triggers a referral to a Planning Committee? BC – Rational to the District Councillor, although you don’t win them all! The rationale provided by Blakeney Parish Council to NNDC (LDF) for a high number of market housing to support 50% affordable housing, may trigger a rethink on the number of units to be developed in ‘service villages’, particularly those with a high number of second homes.
Q. Is there any law to oppose change of use of premises? BC
– With regard change of class ie. class ‘A’ to class ‘B’, the issue can
be loss of business premises, for example the Ruberry Hill Boatyard in Blakeney
and the Restaurant in Cley for example.
There also seems to be a conflict between eco friendly and
conservation which needs addressing by the Planning Department.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD – (Mr A Lewis – Chairman) - My understanding is that there are suppose to be planning applications, for various cottages and dwellings. *Q. What happens if someone increases the size of their property without having obtained planning permission? BC – NNDC should go and make a site visit, looking at the new rooms etc. If the increase is one metre or less, then this is no substantial difference. If however, the extension etc. is very large, then the owner could actually be forced to pull it down.
LANGHAM – (Mr C Sherriff – Chairman) - We have no real problems, and find that the department itself is very good. BC – Thank you, I shall forward your comments on.
Q. Is Bernard happy with the members on the NNDC Planning Committee? BC – The Development Control Committee, is legal in that it consists of 12 members. The Parish Council representative should have a script and should leave one with the DC Clerk, so that their views and comments can correctly be recorded. You must make sure that all of this is done, and then follow this up. I am generally happy with the law side of things, the rules and regulations.
Q. So why do people outside of the parish make the final
decision? BC – The recent ‘Government White Paper’, which
is 171 pages long, talks of town area partnerships, these are areas/sections on
planning, and for Parish Councils to be part of the decision makers, then they
have to be a ‘Quality Parish Council’ and have fully elected members.
MORSTON – (Mr Jim Temple – Chairman) - We have had two planning applications, on which we feel more than let down on by the planning department at NNDC. The first is at ‘Coldblow Cottage’, Langham Road, where the Parish Council unanimously agreed to object to the application, and yet we were over ruled by Bernard Crowe, as he got the last say on the site meeting and did not support Morston Parish Council, in its comments.
The second incident is on a larger scale, and involves the planning application for Morston Hall. The proposed development was going to be away from the Hall, and the Parish Council fully supported the application. The Planning Department at NNDC, rejected it, again going totally against the recommendations of the Parish Council.
Morston Hall then prepared new plans, the contents of which horrified the Parish Council, and these were then objected to fully by the Parish Council. This time the Planning Department approved the plans which no one else liked. BC – The first application showed the access roadway going through the grounds of Morston Hall itself, and others, being the District Council Planners, and myself, did not like the road/track going through this site. I went out and met with the owner of Morston Hall, and subsequently, I with others, felt that the second planning application was better. My mistake was that I did not go back to Morston Parish Council, and I then had to write to their Clerk, Mrs Tricia Temple-Crowe, to explain.
*Q. What is the point in having a Parish Council, when we are
not listened to? BC – Parish Councils should say when they want
a planning application to go to committee, if they feel very strongly about
it. In the last 8 years have there
been any other problems in Morston?
No, but these are 2 serious ones, in such a small
village. Both of these incidents
have left us
feeling that we are not
listened to, and that our comments are of no importance whatsoever.
With regard the Village Design Statement a different application was thrown out by the Planning Department, and the applicant then used our Village Design Statement to assist his application. Morston Parish Council passed the application, but NNDC refused it. The VDS does not seem to have any weight. – Once adopted, Morstons’ isn’t at the moment, then they are supplementary planning guidelines.
Q. Who from NNDC polices holiday lets? BC
– No one, basically they have to be occupied for a maximum of 11 months
of the year, if it has been reported that this has been exceeded, then an
Enforcement Officer is then sent out.
STIFFKEY – (Mr Laurence Jordan – Chairman) - I agree with Morston, in that when the Parish Council makes a decision, it feels that the decisions are not looked into carefully by the Planning Department.
A change of use has just been passed in Stiffkey, and the Parish Councils comments have yet again been totally disregarded, with regard the site by the Red Lion Pub. The highways access point is a real danger, the plans do not fit the site, and indeed work has now temporarily been stopped. Such issues are not taken seriously by the District Council, and the Parish Councils views seem to be worth nothing. They do not fully investigate how services are to be supplied. The locals are paying for outsiders and developers.
The Parish Council want more
applications to go to committee and for them to be fully discussed in the
open. BC – I am not the
local member for Stiffkey, but did work with Laurence for 4 years before the
boundaries changed. A decision
devolved to a Planning Officer cannot be overruled but the applicant can appeal
it. The Officer is required to
take into account all comments made.
If an application is controversial and goes to Committee, this is when
the applicant, objector, and Parish Council can speak. The Officers’ recommendation can be
overruled/amended by the Committee.
WIVETON – (Mr
Godfrey Sayers – Chairman) - After
this evenings meeting, we would like to see a formal written response to the
Planning Department at NNDC which they in turn reply to formally.
Firstly, I would like to know about
planning rules for Eco friendly houses and if they take precedence over the
existing Conservation regulations.
When I contacted NNDC about this the Officer did not seem to know the
answer.
My second point concerns non
material amendments, where for example we had an application in Wiveton for a
workshop/double garage and then had to watch helplessly as through a series of
non-material amendments it became a bungalow! We tried to stop this happening again by covering it in our
Village Design Statement, but were advised by NNDC that outlining the process
in this way we would encourage others to do the same. So in spite of such a practice flying in the face of all the
conservation area objectives NNDC were not prepared to do anything about
it. The answer appears to be, cheat
and you can win!
As well as having Conservation
Area Design guides and it being an AONB, where one would expect planning design
variance to be confined to quite a narrow band in terms of design acceptability
outrageously out-of-keeping houses and structures still get built. WHY?
One example (fortunately averted
by somebody actually buying the site), was between the villages of Wiveton and
Glandford just beside the river Glaven flood plain and had on it a very small
bungalow, built before planning regulation would have excluded it. An application was then received for a
large 3 storey dwelling, when I asked the applicant why they had applied
for something so clearly
unacceptable in such a location I was told they were advised by a planning
officer, that this would be acceptable.
WHY?
Planning Officers, do not seem to know the regulations they are suppose to be adhering to. In this instance, Wiveton Parish Council were so concerned, that we went along to the sub committee at NNDC, and found them to be very badly informed when it came to the planning law. Bernard has just told Jim Temple that to get more response, more pressure has to be applied to the planning sub-committee. We applied as much pressure as we could that day, only to have the Planning sub-committee Vice Chairman say that they very much resented Wiveton Parish Council trying to control them! Needless to say, we came away very dissatisfied, with the decision and performance of the Planning Committee. They are paid and should be trained to have at least a basic understanding of Planning Law, and should undertake site visits to see the landscape context of out of settlement applications.
BC – The application you
speak about is ‘The Haven’, and yes this has all changed. There was a site visit for the 3 storey
application, because I referred it to Committee. The Planning Committee and substitutes have to be trained
prior to appointment. They
naturally gain more experience after a year or two. With regard ‘Eco friendly’ houses, these are a new subject area. In the AONB arena, some people favour
these, whilst others find them to be totally horrendous. There will probably be a change in the
new LDF, i.e. the Environment etc., but for the
Conservation Area, there is planning guidance on what is acceptable, such as
underfloor heating, solar power etc.
GS – We are concerned about the structure, not the inside
workings, the house on Saxlingham Road in Blakeney, is an eyesore, but somehow
won an award.
BC – I stress that you must push the planning applications to committee, if you
feel strongly. Q. Where the application is contentious, representatives from
the Parish Council should be allowed to attend and speak. 3 minutes is not enough time, in
relation to the importance of the item being discussed.
BLAKENEY – (Mrs
Jenny Girling – Vice Chairman, Mr Graham Bean, Mr Tony Faulkner & Mr
Barry Girling) – Q. Why are
Planning Notices erected? BC – To inform the neighbours of the
application. Q. So how can a games room be advertised,
and yet after erected, it magically turns into B&B accommodation, this was
false consultation to the neighbours.
Also, how can a garage turn into a permanent rentable housing
accommodation? Again is this not
cheating, and false consultation?
Q. I thought that if the Parish Council objected, then it had to go to committee, could this not be a rule? The vast majority of planning applications are not contentious, but those that are, should go to committee. Those we can think of right now are; South Granary, Saxlingham Road, Church Tower, Kingsway the bungalow built with yellow bricks, Spring Cottage, Highfield House & Queens Close. All of these have been contentious issues.
GB – It is not Bernards fault, but the system which is at fault. The decisions are not made by local people, and they do not care about the locality. NNDC are frightened to go to appeal. I feel that having an adopted Village Design Statement does not make any difference. There are no local people in the role of a Planning Officer.
Q. How closely does the Planning Department work with the Highways Department? BC – Not very close at all.
Q. The reason I ask, is that the Barn Conversion which is
currently taking place in Cley off Newgate Farm, has a terrible and most
dangerous access point, and is in my opinion and that off many others, an accident
waiting to happen. With regard the
Planning Department and the Highways Department who has the final say? BC
– The Planning Department has the final say, but is required to take the
consultation from Highways into account.
Cllr Mr Tony Faulkner, thanked Bernard on behalf of the meeting, for attending, and praised the NNDC website.
Meeting closed at 8.09pm.