Members present: Mr. B. Oliver (Chairman), Mr. K. Ascott, Mr. L. Cooper (District Councillor),

Mrs. S. Owen, Mr. S. Potter, Mr. G. Staines, Dr. R. Woodcock.

Also in attendance: Mrs. Jane Potter (Clerk).

Mr John Archer (District Council Ward Member) attended the public session prior to the meeting.

The meeting was not attended by any members of the public.

Apologies were received from Mr. D. Fleming and Mr. G. Strathern who were unable to attend due to professional commitments.

Mr. Cooper apologised for his late arrival, having been unavoidably detained. Mr. Cooper joined the meeting during discussion of Agenda item 4.6/08/06.

2/08/06. THE MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 14^TH JULY 2006, having been circulated to all Members, were approved, and signed by the Chairman.

3/08/06. TO DISCUSS ANY MATTERS OF INFORMATION ARISING FROM THOSE MINUTES:

3.1/08/06 Clerk: The Clerk did not have any matters arising from the July meeting to report to Members.

3.2/08/06 Members’: Members did not have any matters arising from the July meeting to discuss.

4.1/08/06 Decisions taken between meetings: Members noted that the Parish Council had not made any recommendations to Maldon District Council between meetings.

4.2/08/06 Current applications: FUL/MAL/06/00848 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement chalet/bungalow. Last Resort, Junction Road, Cold Norton. Mr. and Mrs. A. Jones.

The Parish Council recommended APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06/00899 Change of use to a prestige motorcycle restoration service and repair centre. Atherstone Lodge, Fambridge Road, Purleigh. Harley Tech.

Mr. Potter declared an interest in the above application and played no part in the formulation of the Parish Council’s recommendation.

The Parish Council recommended APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06/00906 Front entrance porch. Turnstone, The Street. Purleigh. Mr. and Mrs. Challis.

The Parish Council recommended APPROVAL.

4.3/08/06 Notification of Appeals: Members noted that the Parish Council had not been notified of any Appeals between meetings.

4.4/08/06 Maldon District Council planning decisions: Members noted that Maldon District Council had APPROVED the following applications:

And had REFUSED to grant planning permission for the following development:

4.5/08/06 To receive a report of matters arising from Councillors’ meeting with James Doe (Chief Planning and Development Services Officer, Maldon District Council) held on 9^th June 2006: Palepit Farm: Members noted that James Doe had advised that, as discussed at the meeting with Councillors on 9^th June 2006, the owner had been invited to submit a planning application within a specified period of time for the retention of the new agricultural building erected on land at Palepit Farm. That period had now expired and the District Council had instigated formal enforcement proceedings to address this breach of planning control.

Little Wood Place: Members noted that Mr. Doe had nothing more to report on this site. Enforcement Officers would maintain a watching brief, and had asked the Parish Council to advise them of any further developments in activity on the site.

In light of the above advice, the Parish Council had requested confirmation from the planning department that the residential caravan, industrial plant and storage of builders’ materials on the site constituted permitted development.

Mapledean Industrial Estate: Members noted that there had been two recent grants of planning permission for plots to the front and rear of the estate. Landscaping was a requirement of both schemes and would be carried out as part of the development process, as and when that took place.

Road signs: It was noted that this matter had been raised again with the relevant officer, and Mr. Doe had asked him to send a separate response to the Parish Council. Theft of metal signs continued to be a problem in the district but Mr. Doe had noted the informal view of Parish Councillors expressed at the meeting that replacements using plastic signs would be acceptable.

4.6/08/06 Maldon District Council’s planning performance and the delegation of cases to Officers: Mr. Cooper joined the meeting during discussion of this Agenda item.

Members noted that James Doe had advised the Parish Council that the District Council had been considering this matter for some months. The Government had set high, non-negotiable targets for processing and determining applications within set timescales, which had to be achieved by the end of March 2007. Councils who failed to achieve these targets faced direct government intervention. Although the District Council’s performance had improved over the past two years, it was not hitting two out of three of the targets set.

Members noted that the District Council was giving consideration to this matter, and a range of measures were either in place or were being developed to make sure applications were dealt with efficiently and effectively. The Council had already examined in detail proposals for the replacement of the three Area Committees by a single Committee, but had decided to retain the status quo. The issue of performance however remained under consideration.

It was noted that the Audit Commission had found that one of the reasons why Area Committees found themselves dealing with relatively minor planning applications was ‘the Parish Council trigger’. This resulted in applications having to be referred to a Committee when the clearly stated view of a Parish or Town Council conflicted with an Officer’s recommendation.

It had been concluded therefore that as part of the revised scheme of delegation, the withdrawal of ‘the Parish Council trigger’ would help the District Council’s performance level. Following consideration by the Area Committees, the Planning and Licensing Committee had considered the matter and had agreed to recommend to full Council that a revised arrangement be implemented whereby the ‘Parish Council trigger’ was replaced by an enhanced Member call-in procedure. This was an extension of the present system that enabled a Ward Member to request, within a given period, that an application be referred to a Committee rather than be determined by Officers under delegated powers.

It was proposed that Ward Members would decide to exercise call-in on the basis of their awareness of issues, including the views of the Parish or Town Council, local residents or other interested parties. Those applications which were not called-in would be determined under the delegation scheme. Call- in would therefore work in either of the following ways, at the discretion of the Ward Member:

1.   In calling in an application to Committee, a Ward Member was not required to declare a position of support or approval for the proposals, and therefore would not be debarred from participating in the discussion on the application or from voting.

Or

2.   In calling in an application, a Ward Member would declare his/her inclination towards it (either approval or refusal) and the application would be referred to Committee where this inclination differed from the advice of the Planning Officer. This would however debar the Ward Member from voting.

Members noted that according to the District Council, the proposed change encouraged good communication between Parish/Town Councils and their Ward Members. As always, the District Council placed great value on the involvement of Parish and Town Councils in its planning processes, and Mr. Doe wished to reassure Members that this would in no way be diminished by any of the proposed changes.

The Parish Council’s views on the proposed revised arrangement were sought by no later than 8^th September 2006.

It was agreed to OPPOSE the proposed revised arrangement on the following grounds:

The Parish Council appreciated that the District Council had targets to meet and that failure to do so may result in the Council being prevented from benefiting from the Government’s planning grant, to the detriment of the district. Members believed however that the District Council’s proposed revised arrangement reflected its desire to meet targets for their own sake rather than to use them as a tool to improve the quality of decision making. Abandoning the ‘Parish Council trigger’ to speed up the planning system would be at the expense of quality in the decision making process, and threatened to undermine public trust in the legitimacy of planning and development in the District. The Parish Council believed that there were other, better, ways to meet government targets than by creating a mechanism by which Parish Councils’ comments could be ignored.

The right of Parish Councils to be consulted about planning applications in their area was enshrined in law (Local Government and Rating Act 1997 s21; The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 s13(2) and Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The fact that they had a statutory right to comment on applications (within a specified time) if they chose to do so reflected the important role the Government believed Parish Councillors, equipped with first hand knowledge of their community and locality, should play in the delivery of an equitable and transparent planning system. Section 13 of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, went as far at stating that ‘in determining the application the authority shall take into account any representations received from the council of the parish or community’.

Parish Councils also had the right to appear at appeals and inquiries (Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000). The District Council’s case at any such hearing would surely be weakened if it could be demonstrated that the District Council had been unaware of a Parish Council’s views on an application and that these had consequently been ignored. Such a situation could lead to the loss of the appeal and costs being awarded against the Planning Authority.

Parish Councillors believed that the ‘enhanced Member call-in procedure’ was fundamentally flawed, depending as it did, almost entirely on the quality of the relationship between Council and Ward Member. Ward Members were under no obligation to represent the views of Parish Councils at district level; communication between Ward Members and their parishes could be ineffective and Ward Members may be unavailable to Parish Councils by virtue of work commitments, ill heath or holiday commitments. The system was also undemocratic. Under the current system applicants could attend Parish Council meetings and take advantage of the public session to explain their applications to Members prior to a democratic decision being taken on whether to recommend approval or refusal of the proposed development. Under the revised arrangements applicants would only have to lobby the Officer and Ward Member leaving the Ward Member open to pressure, and by implication accusations of fettered judgement. There was also no guarantee that under the proposed enhanced Member call-in system fewer applications would be referred to Committee, the number of referrals again being dependent on the Ward Member’s attitude to applicants and the Parish Council.

The Parish Council believed that ‘the Parish Council trigger’ which resulted in applications having to be referred to a Committee when the clearly stated view of a Parish or Town Council conflicted with an Officer’s recommendation was a vital component of the planning system.

Members suggested that to help meet targets Area Committees could meet more frequently, perhaps every three weeks rather than every four, or that Parish Councils’ recommendations could be disregarded if they did not specifically relate to planning policy or cite legitimate planning reasons in support of their recommendations, thus reducing the number of applications referred to Committee.

The revised arrangement also contradicted the stated aim of central and local government to improve local governance by making it more democratic and accountable, by increasing community involvement, and by enhancing the role of Parish, Town and Community Councils.

4.7/08/06 East of England Plan – review of provision of Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites: Members noted that the Regional Planning Panel of the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) had decided to proceed with a single issue review of the East of England Plan relating to gypsy and travellers’ caravan sites.

The review was required to:

1. Address the pressing need for regional policy to assist local authorities in the East of England to identify the appropriate number and location of gypsy and traveller caravan sites through their Local Development Documents

2. Conform to the new policy framework on gypsies and travellers (in particular Government Circular 01/2006).

3. Meet the requirements of The Housing Act 2004 and The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Members noted that a Steering Group had been set up to guide the review and that they had drafted a Project Plan and Statement of Public Participation. The Parish Council had been invited to comment on this document by 11^th October 2006.

Members noted that Mr. Ascott had already responded to the consultation paper on behalf of the Essex Association of Local Councils. A copy of his response was circulated along with the draft document for Members’ consideration, prior to the matter being reconsidered at the September 2006 Parish Council meeting.

4.8/08/06 Other planning matters: Use of the garage, Montrose, Birchwood Road: Members noted the response from Linda Chamberlayne (Planning Enforcement Officer, Maldon District Council) regarding the permitted uses of a garage.

Maldon District Council planning seminar for Town and Parish Councils: Mr. Ascott reported that he had attended the seminar on behalf of the Parish Council. At the seminar the District Council had advised delegates that the planning system had been computerised.

Mr. Ascott had subsequently discovered that this system was deeply flawed, in that mistakes in inputting data and downloading information from other organisations could result in members of the public and officers’ time being wasted. More significantly, people with less determination than Mr. Ascott could end up abandoning their search for information about planning applications. Mr. Ascott explained that seeking information, which previously took five minutes when a paper source was available, could take up to half an hour now the public was forced to use a computer, illustrating that progress had not been made.

Members noted that Mr. Ascott had relayed his dissatisfaction and frustration with the new system to Councillor Delderfield (who had chaired the seminar) and to John Archer (District Council Ward Member).

5.1/08/06 The Essex County Council Definitive Map: Modification No 347: Bridleway 51 and Footpath 52, Birchwood Road to Chelmsford Road via Kent Wood: Members noted that the County Council had made the above Order pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, s53. The Parish Council had received a copy of the Order, which it was required by law to keep on deposit. If the Order was confirmed it would modify the Definitive Map and become a part of it, and had to be available for public viewing at convenient times.

The Order, if confirmed as made, would modify the Definitive Map for the area by:

1. Adding a length of public bridleway from Birchwood Road, approximately 100m east of FP16, in a generally north easterly direction for a distance of approximately 600m. The width of the way varied between 2.5m and 3m.

2. Adding a length of public footpath from a point on Bridleway 51 Purleigh approximately 220m north east of Birchwood Road, in a northerly direction for approximately 165m then turning east to run parallel to the northern boundary of the wood for a distance of approximately 225m to rejoin Bridleway 51 at a point approximately 60m south west of its exit into Chelmsford Road. The width of the way varied between 1m and 1.8m.

Any representation or objection relating to the order had to be sent in writing to the Head of Law and Administration, Essex County Council, to arrive not later than 7^th September 2006.

5.2/08/06 Other highway matters: Highway safety: Roundbush section of Fambridge Road: Members noted that a letter from AGHAST had been placed in the circulation folder for Members’ information.

New Street Lighting Policy and Practice: Members noted that Maldon District Council had asked the Parish Council to make it aware of parishioners’ views and concerns about the proposed initiative to switch off street lights during certain hours of darkness. The initiative would be piloted in the Maldon and Uttlesford Districts.

Birchwood road sign: Members noted that the District Council had still not reinstated the Birchwood Road sign.

Loose chippings warning signs: It was agreed to ask Essex County Council to remove all the redundant signs in the parish which warned motorists about loose chippings, which had been superfluous for weeks.

Parish Council’s stile: Rigby’s Path: Mrs. Owen reported that the stile posts had become loose. Mr. Potter explained that this was due to the prolonged spell of dry weather and suggested that she place some loose soil in the slots in the ground around the posts and then water it in.

Mrs. Owen also agreed to erect laminated signs at either end of the footpath running between the stile and the playing field to remind dog owners not to let their animals foul the footpath.

The Parish Council agreed that the Clerk could purchase a reasonably priced laminator.

Overhanging vegetation, Chelmsford Road: The Chairman agreed to remind Mr. Fleming that he had agreed to cut back the hedge which was overhanging the pedestrian footpath in Chelmsford Road, between Rudley Green and the entrance to Lodge Lane.

6.1/08/06 Children’s Play Area: Monthly report: Mr. Ascott reported that he had carried out his usual weekly inspections of the Children’s Play Area and that all items of play equipment therein appeared to be in a satisfactory condition.

The Clerk signed and dated the written record of Mr. Ascott’s weekly inspections of the play area.

Members noted that Dr. Woodcock had replaced a worn link on the chain which formed part of the suspension bridge. Dr. Woodcock was thanked for all his help in monitoring the condition of this piece of equipment. It was noted that the split rungs for the bridge had arrived, and that Mr. Ovel would be asked to install them as soon as possible.

6.2/08/06 Pavilion extension: Snag list: Members noted the snag list prepared by Bernard Steeples (Chairman, PPFA), which had been circulated amongst Members prior to the meeting.

It was agreed that Mr. Lynch should not be asked to repair or replace the entry door tread which had been damaged by cricket studs, as it was not his fault that it was now in an unsatisfactory condition and it should not therefore form part of the snag list.

The Parish Council also agreed to add to the list a request that the water heater’s flow pipe be extended as it did not currently reach the sink, and to ask Mr. Lynch to take measures to stop the disabled toilet door from swinging out at the bottom, to fit a lock to the ladies toilet door and to ensure that a mirror was fitted in the disabled toilet.

Members also questioned why a lock was needed on the kitchen door, as leaving the door locked could prevent hirers of the hall from using the facilities if they couldn’t locate a key.

Pavilion kitchen: Members noted that as the Pavilion now had a kitchen rather than a tea-making point, it was subject to new Environmental Health Regulations, and an inspection regime administered by the District Council. Members noted that the premises had been registered and that the Clerk was waiting for guidelines from the District Council to ensure compliance.

Exterior of the pavilion: Members noted a request from the PPFA that apart from the Parish Council purchasing the necessary materials, Parish Councillors participated in any working party set up to repaint the outside of the hall. It was agreed that the Parish Council consider precepting to re-paint the exterior of the Pavilion at the January 2007 Parish Council meeting.

6.3/08/06 To review the adequacy of the Pavilion’s insurance cover: Members noted that Mr. Taylor had not yet provided the Parish Council with any estimates to re-build the Pavilion in a variety of materials.

6.4/08/06 Maldon District Council sports taster session for young people in Purleigh aged between 6 and 14: Members noted that Maldon District Council was running a sports taster session on the playing field for children aged between 6 and 14 on Friday, 18^th August between 1.00 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. The session was free of charge but the District Council needed access to the Pavilion toilets during the session.

Mrs. Owen and Mr. Staines volunteered to arrange for access to the Pavilion for the duration of the session.

6.5/08/06 Other playing field and open space matters: Members did not have any other playing field or open space matters to discuss.

Members noted that Mark Jackson (Maldon District Council Planning Officer) had apologised for the delay in progressing this matter. He had now however made contact with Lyn Strange (Mail Centre Chelmsford) who was responsible for dealing with post box re-location. Mr. Jackson would like to meet with Ms. Strange and representatives from the Parish Council, on site, to discuss the matter further when Ms. Strange returned from holiday in early September.

It was agreed that the Clerk, Chairman and Mr. Staines would try to attend the site meeting and that they would point out to the District Council and Royal Mail that the request to re-locate the post box had been made in the Parish Appraisal (March 2001).

8.1/08/06 To receive a report of the annual site inspection: Members noted that the Clerk (accompanied by Mr. Potter) had visited the allotment gardens in Chelmsford Road on 1^st August 2006 and had carried out the annual site inspection.

The Clerk reported that it had again been a genuine pleasure to carry out the annual inspection of the allotments and to see the results of so much hard work by the tenants. Mr. and Mrs. Clarke, Mr. Flanders, Mr. Woollard and Mr. Clark’s plots were particularly well cultivated, and Mr. Bowring and Mr. Gibbs, new tenants, were to be commended for the work they had done on their plots, which were well on the way to full cultivation and were yielding some lovely fruit and vegetables.

Members noted that the path surrounding Plot 9 had been fully reinstated and Plot 4 was the correct width. Mr. Woollard had not however re-applied for his tenancies, having been given twelve months notice to quit last September.

It was agreed to commend Mr. Woollard for the remedial work he had done to reinstate the paths surrounding his allotment plots and to ask him whether he would like to re-apply for his tenancies.

8.2/08/06 Rent review 2006/2007: Having given careful consideration to the allotment accounts 2005/2006 and to anticipated income from, and expenditure on, the allotments during 2006/2007, it was proposed and agreed that the allotment rents remained at £15 per plot per annum.

Members noted that this Act impacted on Parish Councils in the following way:

Clause 20 of the Act empowered Parish Councils to encourage or promote any of the following: