The Parish Council meeting was preceded at 7.00 p.m. by a meeting with James Doe (Chief Planning and Development Services Officer, Maldon District Council).

The meeting commenced with a brief presentation by Mr. Doe on the work of the Planning Services Department and future strategic planning issues in the District.

Mr Doe then discussed the following planning matters in the parish, which had caused, or were causing, concern:

1. Agricultural buildings at Palepit Farm, Latchingdon Road

2. Lack of enforcement action at Little Wood Place, Fambridge Road

3. The Mapledean Industrial Estate, Maldon Road

4. Outstanding matters relating to road-name signs in the parish

Members present: Mr. B. Oliver (Chairman), Mr. L. Cooper (District Councillor), Mr. D. Fleming,

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

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

Mr. John Archer (District Council Ward Member) and two members of the public attended part of the meeting.

Prior to the meeting, Members absent from the May 2006 meeting reviewed their entries in the Parish Council’s Register of Members’ Interests, and it was noted that the Chairman had signed his Declaration of Acceptance of Office.

Apologies were received from Mr. Kevin Ascott, Mrs. Sue Owen and Mr. Gavin Strathern, who were unable to attend due to prior personal and professional commitments.

Mr. Fleming apologised for his early departure from the meeting as he had another pressing commitment to attend to. Mr. Fleming left the meeting during discussion of Agenda item 6.2/06/06.

2/06/06. THE MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 12^TH MAY 2006, having been circulated to all Members, were approved, and signed by the Chairman.

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

3.1/06/06 Clerk: 10.2/05/06 Disabled parking bay, The Glebe: Members noted that Kerry Milsom (Principal Legal Assistant, Essex County Council) had acknowledged the Parish Council’s objections to the proposals for The Glebe and had passed them on to Mike Ager at the Mid Area Highways Office. Members noted that Mrs. Milsom had asked Mr. Ager to provide the Parish Council with a detailed reply.

It was also noted that Mr. Potter had met with Mr. Andy Debnam (Moat Housing Association) on Tuesday, 6^th June 2006, to discuss the Parish Council’s request that dropped kerbs be installed in Housing Association owned properties in the Glebe cul-de-sac to alleviate the access and parking problems being experienced by residents.

Members noted that Mr. Debnam had subsequently written to the Parish Council and had advised that Moat owned approximately thirty properties within the Purleigh area. The cost to allow for a dropped kerb, hard standing and gates would be approximately £3,000 per property. Unfortunately, Moat did not have any funds available for such a project. However, Mr. Debnam would pass the details to Moat’s ‘Planned Works’ team who would put the project forward as an ‘Environmental Improvement’. Mr. Debnam’s letter stressed however that any projects paid for from the environmental budget were assessed according to their urgency and that those projects that had high security or health and safety needs were carried out first.

11.5/06/06 Uncut grass on the greensward opposite Dovecote, Howe Green Road: Members noted that Moat Housing Association had cut the grass on the greensward opposite Dovecote, Howe Green Road.

3.2/06/06 Members’: Members did not have any matters arising from the May 2006 Parish Council meeting to discuss.

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

4.2/06/06 Current applications: FUL/MAL/06/00612 Erection of 1 no. dwelling and double garage. Framhill, Chelmsford Road, Purleigh. Mr. M. King.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED REFUSAL on the grounds that the scale and design of the garage was disproportionately large compared with the size of the proposed dwelling, having not been amended from that proposed as part of a previous development (applied for under reference FUL/MAL/00371) which was refused on the grounds of its size, bulk and location. Members felt that the ridge height of the garage was too high, and would be emphasised as the property would be situated on rising ground. If built, Members believed the garage would adversely affect the character and visual appearance of the area, and believed that the roof height and pitch of the garage should be the same as the proposed bungalow.

FUL/MAL/06/00572 Proposed alteration to existing outbuilding/single storey extension. Montrose, Birchwood Road, Purleigh. Mr. G. Holmes.

The Parish Council agreed to advise the District Council that in its opinion this development as a whole was out of keeping with its surrounding area by virtue of its size and bulk, and represented considerable over development of the site. The proposal, if permitted would make the property even larger and more out of keeping in the rural street scene to the further detriment of the character of the surrounding area.

The Parish Council agreed to ask the District Council’s Enforcement Officer to investigate the current use of the original double garage, which Members understood might be being used for residential purposes without the benefit of planning consent.

FUL/MAL/06/00568 Provision of manège and hardstanding. Lea House, Howe Green Road, Purleigh. Mrs. Debra Phillips.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, provided conditions were attached:

1. Restricting the use of the manège to that incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling and not for any commercial purposes

2. Prohibiting the use of floodlighting.

FUL/MAL/06/00541 Erection of conservatory. Old Police House, Maldon Road, Latchingdon. Mr. Lucas.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

4.3/06/06 Notification of Appeals:

Appeal ref: APP/X1545/A/05/1196536

Appeal by: Mr. I. Brewer

Site: Charondown, Maldon Road, Latchingdon

Application: FUL/MAL/05/01050 Proposed new roof with rooms

Members noted that the Planning Inspectorate had DISMISSED Mr. Brewer’s appeal against the District Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for a new roof with rooms at Charondown, Maldon Road, primarily on the grounds that the development, if permitted, would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

A copy of the Appeal decision was placed in the circulation folder for Members’ information.

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

And had REFUSED to grant permission for the following development:

4.5/06/06 Other planning matters: Members did not have any other planning matters to discuss.

5.1/06/06 Bridleway claim: Birchwood Road to Chelmsford Road via Kent Wood: It was noted that Mary Morris (Principal Legal Assistant, Essex County Council) had thanked the Parish Council for its comments regarding the draft s31(6) declaration submitted by Woodland Investment Management.

Mrs. Morris had some concerns that all interested parties in this case were not fully aware of the limits of what could or could not be achieved through the s53 process, the purpose of which was simply to ensure that as far as possible the definitive map lived up to its description, through a process of continuous review.  The only criteria that could be taken into account in making an Order to modify the definitive map under this section was consideration of all available relevant evidence. That being the case, the purpose of the report was to publish the evidence that had been taken into account in reaching the decision, and to show how the appropriate law had been applied to that evidence to reach the conclusions that were arrived at.  

Mrs. Morris’s letter explained that although there was evidence that what she had labelled "Route 3" had been used by the public for 20 years, there was also evidence that use had been interrupted by the owner of the subsoil of Footpath 16 placing barbed wire across the boundaries of his land at the entrance to the path.  As reported, there were also concerns about the "quality" of use of this path given the physical layout of the land.    

The effect of the s31(6) declaration was not a dedication as such.  It was evidence that the landowner accepted that public rights of way existed over the paths specified in the declaration, and it also acted as evidence of a lack of intention to dedicate any public rights of way for a period of ten years over the remaining land through the operation of s31 of the Highways Act.  

This did not preclude any further public rights of way coming into being through the express agreement or dedication of the landowner.  However, that was a separate issue entirely, and not one with which Mrs. Morris had any authority to become involved.  She had nevertheless copied the relevant correspondence to her colleague, Katie Haines, who had far more experience of such matters, and may be able to assist in any future negotiations.

If the Parish Council were broadly content with the line of the footpath as shown on the draft declaration circulated at the May 2006 Parish Council meeting, Mrs. Morris would arrange for a revised order plan to be prepared and for the Order to be made and served.   This would allow for any objections to the evidential matters to be aired. 

It was agreed to advise Mrs. Morris that the Parish Council was broadly content with the line of the footpath as shown on the draft declaration

It was also agreed to ask Mr. Ascott to liaise with Richard Scholfield (Estate Manager, Woodland Investment Management) to try to arrange access to the woodland until the legal formalities were completed.

5.2/06/06 Winter Service Review: Essex County Council sent the Parish Council a questionnaire seeking Members’ views on the current Winter Service Policy. Responses were required by 31^st July 2006.

It was agreed to ask Mr. Ascott to fill out the questionnaire on behalf of the Parish Council, as he was the Parish Council’s point of contact with the County Council in times of adverse weather.

5.3/06/06 Temporary road closure, Hackmans Lane: Members noted that the County Council had advised that a temporary road closure was required in Hackmans Lane for a period of 6 weeks (Monday to Friday) commencing on Monday, 24^th July 2006 between the hours of 09:00 and 19:00. The closure was required in the interests of road safety for the public and workforce whilst carriageway resurfacing, footway reconstruction and kerbing were taking place.

It was noted that Hackmans Lane would be closed from its junction with Birchwood Road to its junction with Stow Road, a distance of approximately 4.125km. The diversion route would be via Marlpits Road, B1010 Burnham Road, B1010 Chelmsford Road, B1010 Barons Lane, B1010 Fambridge Road, Latchingdon Road and vice versa.

Access for residents and the Emergency Services would be maintained up to the works area throughout the duration of the works.

5.4/06/06 Other highway matters: Bollards, Montrose House, Birchwood Road: Members noted that a number of substantial wooden bollards had been installed along the highway verge in front of Montrose House, Birchwood Road. As a consequence, it was no longer possible for motorists to pull over onto the verge if they needed to, e.g. when encountering another vehicle on the bend.

It was agreed to refer this matter to the County Council’s Highways Department and to ask them to take appropriate remedial action.

6.1/06/06 Children’s play area: Mr. Staines reported that Mr. Ascott’s had carried out an inspection of the Children’s Play Area and that all items of play equipment therein appeared to be in a satisfactory condition.

6.2/06/06 To receive RoSPA’s Annual report on the condition of the children’s play area: Members noted that RoSPA had inspected the play area on 4^th May 2006. The Inspector’s general comment had been that the playground was in good condition and was well maintained.

Work was required however, on some items of equipment and their safety surfaces.

Members noted and approved that, with the agreement of the Chairman and Vice chairman between meetings, to comply with the insurance company’s requirement to put any remedial work identified by RoSPA in hand within 60 days of receipt of their inspection report, the Parish Council had ordered three replacement swing seats.

Surface: Mr. Potter kindly volunteered to treat the bark with an appropriate non-toxic or non-residual spray to rid the surface of the play area of weeds.

Members noted that RoSPA had recommended installing a sign at the Howe Green Road entrance to the Playing Field warning motorists that children were playing in the vicinity.

As the lack of a sign at this location had been identified by RoSPA as low risk, it was decided not to purchase a sign at this juncture.

It was agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to check the surface of the play area for sharp sticks etc and to top up the level of bark to a minimum depth of 300mm where necessary.

Mr. Fleming left the meeting at this juncture.

Bridge and Slide Unit:

Members noted that as the bridge was accessible to under 3 year olds if placed on it by a ‘carer’, RoSPA recommended that a sign stating ‘Item not to be used by under three year olds’ was installed. The Parish Council agreed not to purchase such a sign, believing it to be unnecessary given that under three year olds would not be in the play area unsupervised and those accompanying them could appreciate that the equipment was not designed for very small children.

Dr. Woodcock kindly agreed to monitor the chains on the bridge as some rust and wear was showing.

It was agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to repair any damaged platform timbers and to secure the bridge logs to ensure minimal movement to remove the risk of finger entrapment. The Parish Council agreed to purchase replacement split logs if required.

Seesaw:

Members noted that no remedial work was required to this piece of play equipment.

2 Junior swings – 1 bay:

It was agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to install the two replacement seats and to cover the concrete near the base of the post.

Members noted that RoSPA had identified trip zones at edge of the impact attenuating surface. It was agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to build up the ground levels to remove this hazard.

2 Cradle Swings –‘T’ type:

Members noted that RoSPA had advised the Parish Council that the distance between the seat side and the support was insufficient, and that the seats were set at the incorrect height. It was agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to re-set the seats so that they were at the correct height, which, to meet the requirements of EN1176, needed a minimum ground clearance of 350mm and a maximum seat surface to ground distance of 635mm.

It was also agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to install the replacement seat once received, and to build up the ground level to remove the trip hazard identified at the edge of the impact attenuating surface.

Spring Dog:

Members noted that no remedial work was required to this equipment.

Tyre Unit and Overhead ladder:

It was noted that RoSPA was concerned by accidents on some types of overhead ladders. There was, however a strong development value in these items. If possible on angled or S shaped bars, consideration should be given to level bars with firm grips and even spacing. The protective surface under all bars needed to be kept in good condition.

It was agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to build up ground levels to remove the trip hazard identified at the edge of the impact attenuating surface.

Dr. Woodcock agreed to inspect the safety surface, which was apparently lifting and needed re-gluing and the gaps and joints filled, and to advise the Clerk if Adventure Playgrounds Ltd (the suppliers), needed to be called back to the site to rectify any faults.

Basketball hoop and surrounding area:

Members noted that RoSPA recommended that a warning notice should be fitted to all sports related equipment with the words ‘Do not climb on the equipment’ and if applicable, ‘Do not hang on the ring’.

The Inspector also reported a projecting bolt thread which needed cutting off and filing down to remove sharp edges and suggested that the rough ground surrounding the post be filled in.

As the area was used as a car park, which may cause hazards and conflict, RoSPA recommended fencing the equipment off with access through a gate that could be opened when a ‘full’ car park was required.

Given the amount of work required to make the basketball hoop and stand acceptable to RoSPA, it was agreed to ask Mr. Ovel to remove it (including the socket in the ground).

6.3/06/06 Pavilion Extension: Members noted that Mr. Lynch had written to the Parish Council on 18^th May 2006 confirming that the construction method he proposed (the only one submitted for building regulations approval) allowed for movement as there would be no firm connection between the new and existing building. This being the case there should not be any detrimental effect to the existing building and its services.

It was noted that Mr. Lynch had started work on the extension on Friday 19^th May 2006.

Kitchen design: Members noted the kitchen layout proposed by Mr. Lynch, which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. It was also noted that the Purleigh Playing Field Association (PPFA) had received a copy of the Howden Kitchen catalogue from Mr. Lynch from which to choose the style and design of the kitchen units. A floor covering also needed to be chosen and the style of overhead lighting to be agreed. The PPFA’s current plan was to install a 30 amp power supply but not an oven and hob at present, unless a PPFA member could find one at a zero or minimal cost. Mr. Steeples (Chairman, PPFA) asked whether the Parish Council concurred with this decision. The PPFA could choose to buy a microwave oven if this was considered beneficial. They may also purchase a roller shutter to shut off the kitchen from the hall if they could find an affordable one.

It was agreed to check that three sinks had been incorporated within the layout of the kitchen, and to ask the PPFA to ensure that whatever floor covering was chosen was tough enough to cope with studded footwear.

The Parish Council agreed that the PPFA could choose the design of kitchen units but Members preferred a light and practical style, which would be easy to keep clean.

From the designs previously supplied, the Parish Council hadn’t appreciated that a fully enclosed kitchen was being proposed and that the area would be cut off from the hall. Members hadn’t therefore visualised having either a door or a shutter. The Chairman agreed to clarify this matter with Mr. Steeples.

In response to a question from Mr. Staines about the adequacy of insurance cover on the Pavilion, Dr. Woodcock advised, and it was agreed, that Cornhill Insurance should be informed that the Pavilion was being extended and that work on the extension had commenced.

It was agreed to ask Mr. Lynch to repair or replace the damaged guttering on the Pavilion whilst he was on site, but not to sand the hall floor at this juncture.

Members noted that Mr. Lynch had also agreed to put quarry tiles in the toilet extension to better match the existing and to provide greater durability than the vinyl in the central aisle.

Grant presentation: Members noted that the PPFA had been presented with the National Lottery Awards for All and Maldon District Council grants by Cllr. Rodney Bass (Chairman, Maldon District Council) on Wednesday, 7^th June at 7.00 p.m. The event had been well attended and PPFA members had provided refreshments. The extension had also featured briefly on the Anglia evening news on Tuesday, 6^th June 2006.

Members noted that the PPFA’s donation to the Parish Council in the sum of £18,444.68 towards the extension had been received.

6.4/06/06 Voluntary registration of the Common, Farther Howe Green: Members noted that the registration of the common in the Parish Council’s name had been completed (Title number EX761831).

6.5/06/06 Other playing field and open space matters: Vandalism at the Pavilion: Members noted that on Saturday, 3^rd June 2006 it had been discovered that various brightly coloured paints had been applied to one end of the Pavilion. With the agreement of the Chairman and Vice Chairman between meetings, Mr. Cornell had been asked to paint over the damage, and Mrs Dilworth had been asked to clean the paint off the windows.

Members noted that it might be possible to identify the culprit and to obtain reimbursement for the cost of the repairs.

Horses on the playing field: The Chairman reported that a horse had been ridden over the playing field damaging the croquet lawn, which if allowed to continue could render the lawn unsuitable for club matches. Mr. Potter reported that he had identified and cautioned one female rider who had been observed riding her horse on the playing field.

It was agreed to monitor the situation. In the meantime, the Clerk would find out the cost of signs to indicate that horses were not allowed on the playing field and would put the matter on the Agenda of the July 2006 Parish Council meeting.

Hole in the Telephone Exchange fence: Members noted that children were gaining access to telephone exchange property through a hole in the fence and were vandalising a tree therein.

7/06/06 Maldon District Council Consultation re: Standards Committee COMPOSITION

Members noted the contents of a letter from Mr. Simon Quelch (Maldon District Council Solicitor) regarding the proposed composition of the Standards Committee, which was convened, as required, to investigate alleged breaches of the Local Code of Conduct.

To streamline the procedure, which currently involved District Councillors facing an investigating committee of six members and Parish Councillors a committee of nine, the District Council were proposing that when a District Councillor’s conduct was being investigated a three person sub committee would be convened, consisting of two District Councillors and an independent member, and when a Parish Councillor’s conduct was to be considered a three person sub committee would be convened consisting of one District Councillor, a Parish Council representative and an independent member. It was further proposed that Cllr. Bass (a Parish, District and County Councillor) be the Parish Council representative who would always sit on the aforementioned three person Sub Committee .

Whilst the Parish Council was in favour of reducing the number of Committee Members Councillors would have to appear in front of to answer any complaint referred by the Standards Board, Members did not feel that Cllr. Bass was an appropriate choice for the position of Parish Council representative.

Members believed it to be essential that the Parish Council representative should not be a District or County Councillor, but should be approaching their duty on the committee from a Parish Council perspective only, be it as a Parish Councillor, trainer or other expert in Parish Council matters. Any individual who held a position in more than one tier of local government would not be able to assess a Parish Councillor’s conduct without reference to their experience in other Councils, which may be detrimental to the interests of the Member being called to account for their actions.

Furthermore, the Parish Council did not think that any individual should ‘always’ sit on any committee, as implied by Mr. Quelch’s letter.

The Parish Council considered supporting Charter 88’s campaign for a modern democracy and whether to ask John Whittingdale OBE, MP, to support the Sustainable Communities Bill.

It was agreed not to become involved in this matter.

9.1/06/06 To receive a report of the independent audit of the Parish Council’s accounts for the year ending 31^st March 2006: Members noted that Mr. Stichbury had carried out a thorough internal audit of the Parish Council’s accounts for the year ended 31^st March 2006 on Thursday, 18^th May 2006 between 9.30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. A copy of Mr. Stichbury’s report to the external auditor (Section 4 of the Annual Return) was circulated for member’s information.

There were no matters arising from the internal audit to report to the Parish Council.

Members noted that the Parish Council’s completed Annual Return for the year ended 31^st March 2006 had been sent to Lubbock Fine for external audit.

9.2/06/06 To receive a report of receipts: Members received a report of the following receipts:

9.3/06/06 To approve payment of an account between meetings: Members noted and approved that the following account had been paid between meetings, adhering strictly to the procedures outlined in the Parish Council’s Financial Regulations 5.3 - 5.7.

9.4/06/06 To approve payment of the following accounts to hand: It was unanimously agreed to approve payments of the following accounts to hand:

Maldon District Annual Meeting: Members noted that the Annual Meeting of Parish and Town Councils had taken place on Wednesday, 7^th June in the Plantation Hall, Heybridge. Inspector Kevin Jacobs (Essex Police) and John Symmons (Chairman, Maldon District Local Strategic Partnership) had addressed the meeting.

Mr. Ascott and Mr. Staines had attended on behalf of the Parish Council.

The chairing skills development package: Members noted that this was a new national package developed by the Parish Council Development Group. The first course in a rolling three course programme would take place on 27^th June 2006 between 10.00 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. in the Foakes Hall, Great Dunmow at a cost of £50 per delegate. The topics covered would be ‘Chairing a Meeting’ and ‘Professional Conduct’. The remaining two courses would cover ‘The Public and Media’, ‘Conduct and Other Challenging Issues’, ‘Chairing a Challenging Meeting’ and ‘Visionary Leadership’.

Members noted that Isobel and John Doubleday had invited Parish Councillors to Goat Lodge on Saturday, 17^th June 2006. Cream teas would be served in the studio at Goat Lodge Farm, Goat Lodge Road, Great Totham from 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and at 4.30 p.m. Peter Chillingworth, Chairman of CPREssex would give a brief exposition of the work of the CPREssex.

Members did not have any points of information to share.

Consideration was given to the crime and disorder implications of all decisions made at this meeting.

There being no further business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.47 p.m.